EVALUATION OF A TOP-OF-RAIL

LUBRICATION SYSTEM

Office of Research and

Development

Washington, DC 20590

August 1999

Sponsored by:

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Research and Development

Washington, DC

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, DC

CSX Transportation

Prepared by:

Kenneth Davis

Wain Stickland

CSX TRANSPORTATION

Eric Sherrock

ENSCO, INC.

APPLIED TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING DIVISION

DOT/FRA/ORD-99-13 August 1999 This document is available to the U.S.

Final Report public through the National Technical

Information Service, Springfield, VA
NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship

of the Department of Transportation in the interest of

information exchange. The United States

Government assumes no liability for its contents or

use thereof.

NOTICE

The United States Government does not endorse

products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’

names appear herein solely because they are

considered essential to the object of this report.

NOTICE

In numerous places, this report discusses whether

various aspects of the technology that is the subject of

this report comply with Federal safety laws and

regulations. Those discussions, which reflect the

seasoned judgment of commentators qualified in their

fields, do not constitute rulings by the Federal

Railroad Administration’s Office of Safety or its

Office of Chief Counsel concerning compliance with

the law.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data

sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other

aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports,

1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC

20503

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES

COVERED

 August 1999 Final Report

 February 1998 – August 1999

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

 EVALUATION OF A TOP-OF-RAIL LUBRICATION SYSTEM DTFR 53-96-C-00001

6. AUTHOR(S)

 Kenneth Davis/CSX Transportation

 Wain Strickland/CSX Transportation

 Eric Sherrock/ENSCO

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

 ENSCO, Inc.

 Applied Technology and Engineering Division

 5400 Port Royal Road

 Springfield, VA 22151

 ENSCO-DOT-FR-99-08

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

 U.S. Department of Transportation

 Federal Railroad Administration

 Office of Research and Development

 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW

 Mail Stop 20

 Washington, DC 20590

 DOT/FRA/ORD-99/13

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service,

Springfield, VA 22161

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

This report documents the testing of a top of the rail lubricant applied in computer-controlled quantities. This system, the SENTRAEN

2000TM, was developed by Tranergy. The testing was carried out over CSXT operated track between Corbin, KY and Cartersville, GA on

various train runs from February 15, 1999 to March 4, 1999. These tests, sponsored by FRA, DOE, and CSXT, were conducted to

assess the use of the top of rail lubrication system in normal operating conditions.

The report describes the test criteria used to evaluate the performance of the top of the rail lubricating system, the instrumentation used,

the test locations, and the track conditions. Results are presented from tests conducted on CSXT’s Stilesboro’s 90 car coal trains. The

significance of the results is discussed. Conclusions and recommendations are presented.

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

 Top of Rail (TOR) Lubrication, Effect of TOR Lubricant on Train Handling and Speed Control

 Effect of TOR Lubricant on Braking, Stop Distance, Wheel Slip, Lateral Curving Forces

 Safety, Energy Savings

 116

16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY

CLASSIFICATION

 OF REPORT

18. SECURITY

CLASSIFICATION

 OF THIS PAGE

19. SECURITY

CLASSIFICATION

 OF ABSTRACT

20. LIMITATION OF

ABSTRACT

 Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI/NISO Std. Z39-18

298-102

ENGLISH/METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS

(ENGLISH UNITS TO METRIC UNITS)

LENGTH

1 inch (in) = 2.54 centimeters (cm)

1 foot (ft)=30.48 centimeters (cm)

1 mile (mi) = 1.61 kilometers (km)

SPEED

1 mile/hour (mph) = 1.61 kilometers/hour (kph)

MASS – WEIGHT

1 pound (lb) = 0.45 kilogram (kg)

1 short ton = 2,000 pounds = 0.9 tonne/metric ton (t)

FORCE

1 pound (lbf) = 4.45 Newtons (N)

PRESSURE

1 pound/square inch (psi) = 6,894.8 Newtons/square meter (Pa)

VOLUME

1 gallon (gal) = 3.78 liters (l)

TEMPERATURE

[(x-32)(5/9)] °F = y °C

POWER RELATED

1 kilowatt-hour (kW-Hr) = 3.60 x 106 Joules (J)

i

EVALUATION OF A TOP OF RAIL LUBRICATION SYSTEM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ iii

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................... v

1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Test Objectives .......................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Lubrication System Description ................................................................................ 1

1.3 Previous Test Results................................................................................................. 3

1.4 Test Overview ........................................................................................................... 3

1.4.1 Test Zone................................................................................................................... 4

1.4.2 Wayside Measurements ............................................................................................. 6

1.4.3 Test Consist ............................................................................................................... 7

1.4.4 Test Schedule ............................................................................................................ 7

1.5 Test Responsibilities/Personnel ................................................................................. 8

1.6 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... 9

2. MEASUREMENTS ............................................................................................................... 11

2.1 Train Performance Measurements ............................................................................. 12

2.1.1 Speed .. ...................................................................................................................... 14

2.1.2 Drawbar Force........................................................................................................... 14

2.1.3 Locomotive Electrical Power..................................................................................... 14

2.1.4 Notch Dwell Times.................................................................................................... 14

2.1.5 Fuel Consumption ..................................................................................................... 15

2.1.6 Trainline Pressure...................................................................................................... 15

2.1.7 Location Identification............................................................................................... 15

2.1.8 Dynamic Braking....................................................................................................... 15

2.1.9 Truck Hunting ........................................................................................................... 16

2.1.10 Global Positioning Information ................................................................................. 16

2.2 Lubrication System Measurements............................................................................ 16

2.3 Wayside Measurements ............................................................................................. 17

2.3.1 Instrumented Curve ................................................................................................... 17

2.3.2 Tribometer Measurements ......................................................................................... 18

3. TEST RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 21

3.1 Notch Dwell Times.................................................................................................... 21
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

Section Page

3.2 Braking Distance Measurements ............................................................................... 24

3.3 Tribometer Measurements. ........................................................................................ 27

3.4 Lateral Curving Forces .............................................................................................. 33

3.5 Fuel Consumption ..................................................................................................... 34

3.5.1 Comparable Runs ...................................................................................................... 34

3.5.2 Comparison of Fuel Meter Readings ......................................................................... 35

3.6 Electrical Energy ....................................................................................................... 37

3.7 Mechanical Energy.................................................................................................... 40

3.8 Critical Speed for Truck Hunting ............................................................................. 42

4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................... 43

4.1 Safety Related Issues ................................................................................................. 43

4.1.1 Effect of TOR Lubrication on Train Handling/Speed Control .................................. 43

4.1.2 Effect of TOR Lubrication on Braking...................................................................... 48

4.1.3 Distribution of TOR Lubricant .................................................................................. 49

4.1.4 Effect of TOR Lubrication on Lateral Curving Forces.............................................. 50

4.2 Performance Related Issues....................................................................................... 51

4.2.1 Locomotive Notch Dwell Times................................................................................ 51

4.2.2 Fuel Consumption ..................................................................................................... 51

4.2.3 Electrical Energy ....................................................................................................... 52

4.2.4 Mechanical Energy.................................................................................................... 52

4.2.5 Comparison of Energy Reductions ............................................................................ 53

4.2.6 Effect of TOR Lubrication on Truck Hunting ........................................................... 55

5. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................... 57

6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER TESTING.......................................................... 59

APPENDIX A – Summary of Tests ....................................................................................... A-1

APPENDIX B – Braking Distance Results and Theoretical Treatments ................................ B-1

APPENDIX C – Tribometer Measurements........................................................................... C-1

APPENDIX D – Fuel Consumption Measurements............................................................... D-1

APPENDIX E – Trip Monitor Readings ................................................................................ E-1

APPENDIX F – Mechanical Energy Results.......................................................................... F-1
iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page

1-1 Functional Block Diagram of TOR Lubrication System .............................................. 2

1-2 Map of Test Zone Used in TOR Lubrication Evaluation Test ..................................... 4

1-3 Instrumented Curve Site............................................................................................... 6

1-4 Test Consist Used for TOR Lubrication Evaluation Test............................................. 7

2-1 Data Acquisition System Assignments and Sensor Locations for TOR Lubrication

 Evaluation Test ......................................................................................................... 13

2-2 Instrumented Rail Site Within Curve Body.................................................................. 17

2-3 Instrumentation Employed at Curve Site...................................................................... 18

2-4 Tribometer Used for Determination of Friction Coefficients ....................................... 18

2-5 CSXT Personnel Using Tribometer ............................................................................. 19

3-1 Average Notch Dwell Times Recorded from Trip Monitors, Loaded Test Trains ....... 22

3-2 Average Notch Dwell Times Recorded from Trip Monitors, Empty Test Trains......... 23

3-3 Illustration of Reduction of Dwell Time in Throttle Positions 7 and 8 ........................ 24

3-4 Stop Distance Test Results Conducted on Loaded and Empty Test Trains.................. 26

3-5 Friction Coefficient Measurements Made at Instrumented Curve Site, MP 234.7,

 Results from Run 4 for Passage of Unlubricated, Empty Test Train......................... 27

3-6 Friction Coefficient Measurements Made at Instrumented Curve Site, MP 234.7,

 Results from Run 4 for Passage of Unlubricated, Loaded Test Train ....................... 28

3-7a Friction Coefficient Measurements Made at Instrumented Curve Site, MP 234.7,

 Results from Run 3 for Passage of Lubricated, Loaded Test Train........................... 29

3-7b Friction Coefficient Measurements Made at Instrumented Curve Site, MP 234.7,

 Results from Run 6 for Passage of Lubricated, Loaded Test Train........................... 29

3-8 Friction Coefficient Measurements Made at Tangent Site, MP 311.25, Results

 from Run 5 for Passage of Lubricated, Loaded Test Train ....................................... 30

3-9 Friction Coefficient Measurements Made at Tangent Site, MP 351.67, Results

 from Run 5 for Passage of Lubricated, Loaded Test Train ....................................... 31

3-10 Average Electrical Energy Savings Arrived at Using Trip Monitor............................. 38

3-11 Average Mechanical Energy Values Determined for Each Segment of Test Route..... 40

3-12 Average Mechanical Energy Savings Calculated for Test Runs .................................. 41

4-1 Illustration of Range of Measured Friction Coefficients .............................................. 49

4-2 Illustration of Energy Reduction Determined by Various Methods ............................. 54

4-3 Illustration of Average Energy Reduction.................................................................... 54

B-1 Time History of Parameters Recorded During Brake Test 7 (Run 3,

MP 350 – MP 356) ................................................................................................... B-8

C-1 Average Tribometer Readings, Before and After Test Train Passage.......................... C-8
iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page

1-1 Segments of Test Zone Used in TOR Lubrication Evaluation Test with Loaded

 Test Trains ................................................................................................................ 5

1-2 Segments of Test Zone Used in TOR Lubrication Evaluation Test with Empty

 Test Trains ................................................................................................................ 5

1-3 Summary of Test Runs Used in TOR Evaluation......................................................... 8

3-1 Summary of Notch Dwell Times Obtained from Trip Monitor, Loaded Test Trains ... 22

3-2 Summary of Notch Dwell Times Obtained from Trip Monitor, Empty Test Trains .... 23

3-3 Summary of Braking Distance Tests, Loaded Test Trains ........................................... 25

3-4 Summary of Braking Distance Tests, Empty Test Trains............................................. 25

3-5 Average Friction Coefficient Measurements Before and After Train Passage,

 Tangent Sites............................................................................................................. 31

3-6 Average Friction Coefficient Measurements Before and After Time Passage,

Instrumented Curve Site ........................................................................................... 32

3-7 Comparable Test Segments, Loaded Test Trains ......................................................... 34

3-8 Comparable Test Segments, Empty Test Trains........................................................... 35

3-9 Fuel Savings for Comparable Segments in Different Runs, Loaded Test Trains ......... 36

3-10 Fuel Savings for Comparable Segments in Different Runs, Empty Test Trains........... 36

3-11 Electrical Energy Readings Made from Trip Monitor.................................................. 37

3-12 Summary of Average Electrical Energy Outputs Based on Trip Monitor Readings .... 38

3-13 Average Mechanical Energy Calculations for Test Runs............................................. 41

4-1 Summary of Average Speeds, Number of Throttle Position Changes and Percentage

of Dwell Times for Comparable Test Segments, Loaded Test Trains ................... 44

4-2 Summary of Average Speeds, Number of Throttle Position Changes and Percentage

of Dwell Times for Comparable Test Segments, Empty Test Trains..................... 46

4-3 Summary of Stop Distance Test Results ...................................................................... 48

4-4 Percentage of Energy Reduction Determined by Various Methods ............................. 53

B-1 Mileposts and Grade Distributions Estimated from Track Charts................................ B-4

B-2 Analysis of CSX Braking Tests.................................................................................... B-7
v

EVALUATION OF A TOP-OF-RAIL LUBRICATION SYSTEM

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

In pursuit of a common goal of reducing transportation energy consumption, the Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA) and the United States Department of Energy (DOE) have sponsored evaluations of

top-of-rail lubrication systems. These systems apply a consumable lubricant to the top of both rails behind

the last locomotive axle to lower the wheel to rail friction of the following cars, thus reducing the energy

needed to pull the train. To ensure that locomotive traction of following trains is not adversely affected, the

lubricant is applied in controlled quantities and is designed to be used up (or consumed) as the train passes.

This report documents field tests of the SENTRAEN 2000 top-of-rail (TOR) lubrication system. The

testing was jointly sponsored by the FRA’s Office of Research and Development, CSX Transportation

(CSXT), and Tranergy Corporation – the TOR developer. The tests were conducted in revenue service on

a 243-mile segment of CSXT track containing a high percentage of moderate to steep grades and curves

with a wide range of curvature. CSXT, Tranergy, and ENSCO (under contract from the FRA) designed

the tests and analyzed the data.

Objectives

The objective of this investigation was to conduct further tests of the TOR lubrication system in field

service under the full range of train operating conditions, and possible system operating conditions, with

respect to the following issues:

• Safety Related Issues

- The effect of the lubrication system on train handling/speed control;

- The effect of the lubrication system on braking, including stop distance and wheel slip;

- The distribution of lubricant under the train, including the amount of lubricant remaining on the

rails following a train passage and its influence on subsequent traffic;

- The effect of the lubrication on the lateral curving forces.

• Performance Related Issues

- The energy savings that can be expected from the use of the system for a range of typical trains in

freight service;

- The effect of the lubricant on the critical speed for truck hunting.

Test Description

Train operation parameters were measured for both lubricated and unlubricated movements of CSXT's

Stilesboro's 90 car coal trains between Corbin, KY, and Cartersville, GA. The consist traversed the test

zone at typical operating speeds during the test with instructions being given to the engineers to avoid

using special handling practices for the duration of the test.

The amount of fuel consumed and the electrical output of the locomotive's generators were recorded for the

lubricated and unlubricated trips. Mechanical energy was determined by considering force measurements

made with an instrumented drawbar. Electrical and mechanical energy requirements were assessed in
vi

order to provide a point of comparison for fuel consumption measurements. Measurement of the electrical

energy is an accurate means to determine the energy requirements associated with the movement of the

train. Mechanical energy measurements do not accurately capture energy expenditures during initial

movements of the train where friction, gravity and slack “take-up” can contribute significantly, but do

provide for data of interest in situations such as pulling a consist up an incline.

In addition to energy measurement, lateral and vertical forces were considered in one curve, of

approximately 6 degrees, at locations within the body and spiral of the curve. Tribometer readings were

made at several locations prior to and after train passage for comparison of coefficient of friction

measurements to determine the extent of lubrication remaining after train passage. Stop distance tests were

conducted under lubricated and unlubricated conditions as traffic conditions permitted. Full service and

emergency brake applications were employed for these tests.

The “dry”, or unlubricated, rail condition was considered as a case where the TOR lubrication was not in

use. Throughout the test effort, both wayside lubrication devices and wheel flange lubricators were fully

operational. Of the three locomotives within the consist, the lead and the middle locomotives were

applying flange lubricant continually in all tests. The trailing locomotive was equipped with SENTRAEN

2000 system, which applied lubricant from the trailing end only during tests designated as lubricated

tests. Differences in performance of the test train between the lubricated and unlubricated test runs were

thus measured as a percentage above the levels obtained by using wayside and flange lubrication.

The test zone was divided into twelve segments. This was done in order to aid in the analysis of the results

- if results were compromised by weather conditions or train handling, the data from the affected segment

could be disregarded without compromising results recorded in other segments. The end points of each of

the segments were chosen such that the individual segments of the test zone had uniform terrain and

similar track features.

Results and Conclusions

Observations made during the tests and analyses of the test data lead to the following conclusions:

• Train Handling: The use of the TOR system did not appear to negatively affect either train handling or

speed control. This was evidenced by consideration of the average speeds, notch dwell times and the

number of throttle position changes through comparable test zone segments. Testimonials from

personnel associated with the test confirm this finding. The locomotive road foreman in charge of the

tests reported that he liked the system due to improved train handling, including a smoother ride.

• Braking Performance: Braking performance was found to be safe for the lubricant rate employed

during this series of tests. Stopping distances were approximately the same for lubricated and

unlubricated rail conditions for full service and emergency braking of loaded and empty trains. This

was evidenced by measured distances as well as the same distances corrected for grade and power

application. Full service brake applications showed a decrease in stopping distance when employing

the TOR lubrication, with average reductions on the order of 200 feet. It should be emphasized that

these particular results pertain to these tests and that reductions of this magnitude are not necessarily

universal. There was no occurrence of wheel slip during any of the thirteen (13) braking tests

conducted.

• Lubricant Distribution and Consumption: Results from top of rail tribometer surveys were mixed,

with some surveys showing no change in friction coefficients measured on the rail following the

passage of the test train and some showing a decrease in measured friction coefficients. On a few

occasions, a thin film could be felt by touch of a finger on the rail head after the test train had passed.
vii

While several decreases of friction coefficient, ranging between 0.03 and 0.30, were measured during

the surveys, friction coefficient measurements made at the designated curve location revealed no

significant difference between the changes in friction due to the passage of normal revenue trains and

changes in friction corresponding to the passage of the test train employing the lubrication system. 

Based on measurements made at the curve site that focused on normal revenue service trains, average

friction coefficient measurements ranged between 0.37 and 0.56 before the train passage and between

0.21 and 0.48 after train passage. In comparison, measurements made at the same location for trains

employing TOR lubricant ranged between 0.31 and 0.51 before the passage of the trains and between

0.27 and 0.45 after the passage of the trains. Engineers operating pusher locomotives used for the

fifteen mile 1% grade found the operation of the locomotives to be quite normal when assisting the test

trains using the TOR lubricant. Subsequent trains did not report anything unusual throughout the test

zone; however, systematic reports from subsequent trains were not gathered.

• Energy Savings: Performance related issues focused largely on energy expenditures with savings

being determined using a variety of methods. Energy savings for a round trip of the test train ranged

from 4.20 % to 11.11 %, depending on the method of evaluation used. The average energy savings for

a round trip, found by averaging the results from different methods, was determined to be 7.83 %.

There was a 7.74 % savings in fuel consumption realized when results from comparable test segments

were combined for a round trip (i.e., by disregarding results from segments where the train was

operated in significantly different manners). It should be kept in mind that electrical energy results

were based upon two locomotives. It must be emphasized that differences in performance of the test

train between the lubricated and unlubricated test runs were determined as a percentage above the

levels obtained by using wayside and flange lubrication.

1

EVALUATION OF A TOP-OF-RAIL LUBRICATION SYSTEM

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), in conjunction with the United States Department of Energy

(DOE), has been investigating a new product for use in rail lubrication. The system applies a new

consumable lubrication on top of both rails behind the last axle of the last locomotive. The lubricant is

applied in computer-controlled quantities with the intent that no lubricant is left on the rail after the train

has passed.

The railroad industry has expressed interest in the aforementioned system. The lubricant system,

SENTRAEN 2000, has been developed to date by the Tranergy Corporation, in collaboration with

Norfolk Southern Railroad (NS) and the Texaco Corporation. Proprietary tests of the system have been

conducted in conjunction with NS in revenue coal train service during the last three years. CSX

Transportation (CSXT), in a continuing effort to explore a variety of lubrication practices, has recently

expressed interest in a lubrication system of this nature.

The present field demonstration represents the investigation of the use of the SENTRAEN 2000 top-ofrail (TOR) lubrication system in typical revenue service. This investigation represents a collaborative

effort between the FRA, CSXT, ENSCO, Inc. (under sponsorship of the FRA) and the Tranergy

Corporation.

1.1 TEST OBJECTIVES

The objective of this investigation was to conduct further tests of the TOR lubrication system in field

service under the full range of train operating conditions, and possible system operating conditions, with

respect to the following issues:

• Safety Related Issues

- The effect of the lubrication system on train handling/speed control;

- The effect of the lubrication system on braking, including stop distance and wheel slip;

- The distribution of lubricant under the train, including the amount of lubricant remaining on the

rails following a train passage and its influence on subsequent traffic;

- The effect of the lubrication on the lateral curving forces.

• Performance Related Issues

- The energy savings that can be expected from the use of the system for a range of typical trains in

freight service;

- The effect of the lubricant on the critical speed for truck hunting.

1.2 LUBRICATION SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

The SENTRAEN 2000 lubrication system described in a prior section has been developed over the last

ten years by Tranergy. The system provides an alternative to current on-board wheel lubrication systems,

which apply grease to the locomotive wheel flange to reduce wheel flange friction. The current wheel

flange lubrication systems reduce the friction coefficient between the flange and the rail but not the force

exerted by the flange on the rail. This system was designed to reduce this force exerted laterally on the
2

rail while reducing the friction between the head of the rail and the wheel tread. Reduction in the lateral

forces exerted on the rail should have additional benefits for the track.

The lubrication system applies a consumable, and environmentally safe, lubricant on top of both rails

after the last locomotive axle. The amount of lubricant dispensed on the rails is computer controlled so

that the lubricant is consumed by the time the entire train has passed. The rate of application of the

lubricant is computed in real time by an on-board computer, and is based on the following instantaneous

train and track parameters:

• Train speed

• Train tonnage

• Degree of track curvature

• Ambient temperature

• Brake application

• Direction of travel

• Locomotive position and orientation

A functional block diagram of the system is shown in Figure 1-1. The input of the parameters listed

above to the controlling computer determines the duration over which the solenoid valves are in the open

position, allowing the lubricant to flow from the pressurized storage tank. The solenoid valves revert to

the closed condition upon power interruption to the system.

Figure 1-1. Functional Block Diagram of TOR Lubrication System

The system utilizes an environmentally safe, biodegradable, non-toxic liquid lubricant developed by

Tranergy, in collaboration with Texaco. The lubricant is water-based, containing no solids commonly

used in current lubrication practices such as graphite or molybdenum disulfide, and is designed to

function over a wide range of temperatures. The material can be described as a friction modifier,

providing a reduction in friction under normal rolling wheel conditions but resulting in an increase in

friction under braking conditions. The lubricant is produced and sold by Equilon Enterprises LLC, a joint

venture of Texaco and Shell.

0DLQ&RPSXWHU

DQG6RIWZDUH 7RQQDJH

7HUPLQDO

&XUYH

6HQVRU

%UDNH

3LSH

$[OH

*HQHUDWRU 7HPSHUDWXUH 6HQVRU

1R]]OHV

6ROHQRLG

YDOYHV

5DLO

/RFRPRWLYH3RVLWLRQ

DQG2ULHQWDWLRQ

'LUHFWLRQRI7UDYHO

3UHVVXUL]HG

/XEULFDQW7DQN
3

1.3 PREVIOUS TEST RESULTS

Proprietary tests have been conducted in conjunction with NS in revenue coal train service during the last

three years. Limited information reported from these tests indicates promising results.

Under the sponsorship of the FRA and the DOE, the system was further tested in June, 1997 at the

Transportation Technology Center (TTC) in Pueblo, CO, on the Wheel-Rail Mechanism Loop (3.2 miles).

These tests were supported by Transportation Technology Center, Inc., a subsidiary of the Association of

American Railroads (AAR/TTCI) and NS. The results showed electrical energy savings of up to 30% and

mechanical energy savings of up to 44% (Note: Measurement of the electrical energy is an accurate

means to determine the energy required to move the train; measurement of mechanical energy, though not

as accurate, does provide for data of interest in situations such as pulling a consist up an incline while also

providing a point of comparison for electrical energy measurements). It also showed significant reduction

of lateral forces on curves. The average of the maximum lateral force developed on a 7.5 degree curve

was reduced from 16.5 kips (1 kip = 1000 lbs.) to 5.2 kips on the inside (low) rail and from 13.3 kips to

6.9 kips on the outside (high) rail. During these tests, the level of applied lubrication was higher than the

level needed; lubricant residue was left on the rail after the train passed. Consequently, in the fourth lap,

enough residue build up occurred to cause wheel slip on a 2% downward grade in dynamic braking mode.

Evidence of wheel slip under tractive effort was also reported. Since the time of these tests, Tranergy has

lowered the level of lubrication dispensed by the system. Tests of the system using reduced lubrication

levels were conducted on the same track by AAR/TTCI in the summer of 1998. No instances of wheel

slip were observed over the fifteen (15) laps tested.

Recently, further tests have been conducted by NS with lowered levels of lubrication in order to confirm

consumption of the lubricant towards the end of the train, however detailed results from these tests are not

yet available.

1.4 TEST OVERVIEW

Train operation parameters were measured for both lubricated and unlubricated movements of CSXT’s

Stilesboro’s 90 car coal trains between Corbin, KY, and Cartersville, GA. The consist traversed the test

zone at typical operating speeds during the test. Instructions were given to the engineers to avoid using

special handling practices for the duration of the test. These measures were taken in order to evaluate the

use of the system under normal operating conditions.

Various energy measurements were made for the sake of comparison and validation. The amount of fuel

consumed and the electrical output of the locomotive’s generators were recorded for the lubricated and

unlubricated trips. Mechanical energy was determined by considering force measurements made with an

instrumented drawbar. In addition to energy measurement, lateral and vertical forces were measured in

one curve, of approximately 6 degrees, at locations within the body and spiral of the curve. Tribometer

readings were made at several locations prior to and after train passage for comparison of coefficient of

friction measurements to determine the extent of lubrication remaining after train passage. Stop distance

tests were conducted under lubricated and unlubricated conditions as traffic conditions permitted. Full

service and emergency brake applications were employed for these tests. Information related to each

measurement will be presented in Chapters 2 and 3.

Lubricant was applied from the trailing end of the trailing locomotive to the top of the rail at a rate

determined by the Tranergy system. Lubrication was halted during application of the automatic brake but

not during dynamic or independent braking. The amount of lubricant consumed was measured visually
4

by marking and recording lubricant levels on the sight glass at the start and end of each trip and at

designated locations within the trip.

The “dry”, or unlubricated, rail condition was considered as a case where the TOR lubrication was not in

use. Throughout the test effort, both wayside lubrication devices and wheel flange lubricators were fully

operational. Of the three locomotives within the consist, the lead and the middle locomotives were

applying flange lubricant continually in all tests. The trailing locomotive was equipped with SENTRAEN

2000 system, which was operational only for tests designated as lubricated tests. Differences in

performance of the test train between the lubricated and unlubricated test runs were thus measured as a

percentage above the levels obtained by using wayside and flange lubrication.

1.4.1 Test Zone

The choice of the test zone was dictated by the desire to monitor the test train in a variety of terrain and

track features. Candidate test zones were evaluated based on overall distance, prominence of curves, and

the inclusion of geographic features such as mountainous terrain and level grade territory.

A zone over CSXT operated track between Corbin, KY, and the Stilesboro Power Plant in Cartersville,

GA, was chosen for the test. Each trip to the power plant started at MP 178, south of the terminal at

Corbin. The test consist proceeded to MP 421, via Etowah, TN, where it left CSXT operated track near

the Stilesboro Power Plant. The consist operated through the dumping site at the plant and the empty

return movement was made via the reverse route. Figure 1-2 illustrates the test zone used for the test.

Figure 1-2. Map of Test Zone Used in TOR Lubrication Evaluation Test

The test zone was divided into twelve segments. This was done in order to aid in the analysis of the

results - if results were compromised by weather conditions or train handling, the data from the affected

segment could be disregarded without compromising results recorded in other segments. The end points

of each of the segments, chosen such that the individual segments of the test zone had uniform terrain and

similar track features, are illustrated in Figure 1-2 and detailed in Tables 1-1 and 1-2. Table 1-1 lists the

beginning and ending locations of each test segment considered in test runs employing the loaded test
5

train. Table 1-2 lists the same information for tests conducted on the empty train. The designation of the

test segments based upon the loading condition of the test train was used in the data analysis phase of this

effort to identify comparable cases.

Table 1-1. Segments of Test Zone Used in TOR Lubrication

Evaluation Test with Loaded Test Trains

Segment

Number

Starting

Location

Starting

MP

Ending

Location

Ending

MP

Number of

Curves Notes

1 Corbin, KY 178 High Cliff, TN 203 51 -

2 High Cliff, TN 203 Duff, TN 218 61 Ascent of Duff Mt.

3 Duff, TN 218 La Follette, TN 224 25 Descent of Duff Mt.

4 La Follette, TN 224 Lake City, TN 238 40 -

5 Lake City, TN 238 Knoxville, TN 276 77 -

6 Knoxville, TN 276 - 321 36 -

7 - 321 - 325 2 Stop Distance Test Zone

8 - 325 Etowah, TN 334 12 -

9 Etowah, TN 337 - 350 22 -

10 - 350 - 356 5 Stop Distance Test Zone

11 - 356 Chatsworth, GA 379 26 -

12 Chatsworth, GA 379 Junta, GA 421 41 -

Table 1-2. Segments of Test Zone Used in TOR Lubrication

Evaluation Test with Empty Test Trains

Segment

Number

Starting

Location

Starting

MP

Ending

Location

Ending

MP

Number of

Curves Notes

13 Junta, GA 421 Chatsworth, GA 379 41 -

14 Chatsworth, GA 379 - 356 26 -

15 - 356 - 350 5 Stop Distance Test Zone

16 350 Etowah, TN 337 22 -

17 Etowah, TN 334 - 325 12 -

18 - 325 - 321 2 Stop Distance Test Zone

19 - 321 Knoxville, TN 276 36

20 Knoxville, TN 276 Lake City, TN 238 77 -

21 Lake City, TN 238 La Follette, TN 224 40 -

22 La Follette, TN 224 Duff, TN 218 25 Ascent of Duff Mt.

23 Duff, TN 218 High Cliff, TN 203 61 Descent of Duff Mt.

24 High Cliff, TN 203 Corbin, KY 178 51 -
6

Please note that the test zone segment bounded by MP 321 and MP 325 and the segment bounded by MP

350 and MP 356 were designated as areas for stop distance tests to be conducted. This was due to the

prominence of tangent track within these vicinities.

1.4.2 Wayside Measurements

In order to investigate the effect of the lubricant on curving forces, forces were measured in a curve of

approximately 6 degrees.

The test curve, located near MP 234.7, was instrumented with strain gage based Wheatstone bridges

installed on the high and low rails. The arrangement of the gages were such that the bridges would

measure lateral (L) and vertical (V) forces on the rails as each axle of a trainset passed over the

instrumented sites. The test curve was instrumented at two locations, one location being in the spiral of

the curve and the other being in the body of the curve. The test curve and the locations of the

instrumented sites within the curve are shown in Figure 1-3.

Site 1 (Body)

Site 2 (Spiral)

Figure 1-3. Instrumented Curve Site

During the monitoring of the test train, tribometer readings were taken on top of the two rails. This was

done in order to determine the extent of lubricant remaining on the rail by making comparisons of friction

coefficient measurements made prior to and following the passage of the test train. The tribometer was

configured such that friction coefficients were measured at a location one (1) inch from the gage side of

the rail head. This location corresponded to the region influenced by the lubricant. Tribometer readings

were made at the instrumented curve site and three (3) tangent locations within the test zone.
7

1.4.3 Test Consist

Each test train consisted of two (2) EMD Class SD60 locomotives, one (1) EMD Class SD40-2

locomotive, CSXT’s Technical Research Car, CSXT 994501, and 90 Stilesboro coal hopper cars. The

configuration of the test consist used throughout the series of tests is depicted in Figure 1-4.

Figure 1-4. Test Consist Used for TOR Lubrication Evaluation Test

The lubrication system was installed on the SD60 locomotive designated as CSXT 8709 such that the

lubricant was dispensed at the short hood end of the locomotive. CSXT 8709 was operated as the trail

locomotive for all test runs. The SD40-2 locomotive, designated as CSXT 8328, was the lead locomotive

for all tests. Arranging the locomotives in this manner allowed lubricant to be dispensed on the rails such

that the locomotives were not affected by the lubricant. All locomotives were used for supplying power

for test runs where coal was being carried. CSXT 8702 was taken off-line for the trips in which no coal

was carried.

A 90-car consist comprised of Stilesboro coal hopper cars was used for each trip of the testing effort. The

same set of cars and locomotives was used on each trip of the testing effort. Car numbers and

corresponding car lightweights of each car used in the test were recorded. Each loaded car was weighed

on track scales before beginning each trip south from Corbin.

1.4.4 Test Schedule

Data was gathered for both lubricated runs and “dry” runs. Three (3) round trip runs were made for each

case.

The following is a chronological sequence of the events surrounding the test.

• TOR lubrication system installed on SD60 locomotive, CSXT 8709, during week of 12 Jan., 1998.

• Instrumentation was installed on test curve during weeks of 19 January and 2 Feb., 1998.

• Test consist assembled and instrumentation implemented at Corbin between 12 Feb. and 15 Feb.,

1998.

• Test runs conducted between 16 Feb. and 4 Mar., 1998 (summarized in Table 1-3).
8

Table 1-3. Summary of Test Runs Used in TOR Evaluation

Test Run Starting Date Ending Date Lubrication Condition

1 15 February, 1998 18 February, 1998 No Lubricant

2 19 February, 1998 21 February, 1998 No Lubricant

3 22 February, 1998 23 February, 1998 Lubricant

4 24 February, 1998 26 February, 1998 No Lubricant

5 27 February, 1998 1 March, 1998 Lubricant

6 2 March, 1998 4 March, 1998 Lubricant

Run 1 was primarily used as “shakedown” run in order to check system operations and to establish data

collection procedures. A complete summary of each test run, including trip times, weather conditions,

tonnage and any train handling or data gathering issues is included in Appendix A.

1.5 TEST RESPONSIBILITIES/PERSONNEL

Test personnel included responsible parties from CSXT, the Tranergy Corporation and ENSCO, Inc. The

personnel and their responsibilities are included below.

Test Director Kenneth Davis CSXT

Instrumentation/ Wain Strickland CSXT

Data Reduction

Test Execution/ Dr. Sudhir Kumar Tranergy Corp.

Data Analysis/ Vennie Dyavanapalli Tranergy Corp.

Support Team Suneet Cherian Tranergy Corp.

Kevin Kostelny-Vogts Tranergy Corp.

Eric Sherrock ENSCO, Inc.

Jasen Bellomy ENSCO, Inc.

Eric Brown ENSCO, Inc.

Anthony Burton ENSCO, Inc.

William Jordan ENSCO, Inc.

Quan Ha ENSCO, Inc.

Edward Wulin ENSCO, Inc.

Technical Monitor Dr. Magdy EI-Sibaie FRA Office of

R&D

CSXT was responsible for provision of all equipment and train movement. ENSCO, under contract with

the FRA Office of Research and Development, was responsible for test instrumentation, data acquisition,

analysis, and reporting. Under subcontract to ENSCO, Tranergy Corporation was responsible for

monitoring and maintenance of the lubricant system, and analysis of all data pertaining to the lubricant

system.
9

1.6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge the efforts of those individuals not previously identified that

helped to make this test effort possible. The authors are grateful to the Road Foremen and crews

responsible for train movement between Corbin, KY, and Cartersville, GA. Personnel involved in the

movement of the trains were asked to replicate all train handling procedures for all the test runs in order

to facilitate comparisons. All crews associated with the test did a commendable job of operating the

trains in a consistent fashion. Foremen from this territory also assisted in the arrangement of stop

distance tests. The cooperation of all CSXT personnel was greatly appreciated.

The authors would also like to acknowledge the efforts of Instrumentation Services, Inc. in the

implementation of the wayside instrumentation sites. Instrumentation Services’ timely response under

difficult time restrictions was also greatly appreciated.

11

2.0 MEASUREMENTS

CSXT provided the use of their Technical Research Car for the duration of the series of tests. This car

housed the CSXT data acquisition system, a PC based system using Snap-Master TM data acquisition

software. The Research Car was equipped to measure the following parameters for the duration of the

trip:

• Train speed

• Drawbar force

• Power outputs from all locomotives, including main generator voltage and current

• Notch, or throttle, settings and dwell times

• Fuel flow parameters from all locomotives

• Milepost passage

• Brake pipe pressure

Electrical signals from the locomotives were recorded by tapping into the electric cabinet on each

locomotive and running cables back to the data acquisition system located on the Research Car. Fuel

consumption was monitored by using flow meters installed into the fuel supply and return lines of each

locomotive and routing the signals back to digital readout meters located on the Research Car. The

passage of mileposts was logged by introduction of a location identification signal to the data stream

being recorded. A pressure transducer located within the brake pipe provided signals related to the

application of brakes throughout the test. The data acquisition system was connected to the train line

prior to the test, allowing for the recording of locomotive signals. The test took advantage of the speed

sensors located on the Research Car.

Tranergy personnel monitored the performance of the lubrication system with a laptop PC based data

acquisition system. Although the lubrication delivery system, and controlling SENTRAEN 2000TM

computer, were located on the trailing locomotive, Tranergy’s data collection system was located on the

Technical Research Car. Tranergy personnel monitored the following parameters:

• %PWM, a parameter related to lubricant’s flow rate

• Amount of lubricant consumed during each trip

• Train speed

• Rail curvature

• Lubricant temperature

• Brake pipe pressure

• Tonnage

The sampling speed of the CSXT data acquisition system was set to be 1 sample/sec while the sampling

rate of Tranergy’s data collection system was 2 samples/sec. Synchronization of the two data acquisition

systems was achieved by monitoring GPS signals in conjunction with both systems. GPS signals were

recorded directly by Tranergy’s data collection system. GPS time was recorded by hand at the time of

milepost passage. Since the passage of mileposts was recorded with the location identification signal by

CSXT’s data acquisition system, the data recorded by the two systems could be related to each other.
12

Upon processing of the data, it was determined that the sampling rate of the CSXT data acquisition

system was actually .914 Hz. (1 sample taken every 1.09 seconds). The discrepancy between the desired

sampling speed, 1 Hz, and the actual sampling speed resulted from a timing incompatibility issue arising

from the computer’s operating system. Information pertaining to the actual sampling rate was used in the

analysis of the data.

Trip monitors located in the SD60 locomotives provided information regarding travel distances,

kilowatt-hours used and notch dwell times, including use of dynamic brake and idle time, corresponding

to a particular test run. The trip monitors were zeroed prior to each trip. Tranergy personnel recorded

readings from the monitors following each trip between the end points of the test zone. Trip monitors

readings were recorded from the middle and trailing locomotive following test runs made with the loaded

test trains and from the trailing locomotive for the runs made with the empty test train. Readings were

made in this manner due to the fact that the middle locomotive was taken off-line for the trips made when

no coal was carried.

A log book was maintained in the Research Car to record all events which may have an effect on the test

results. Train orders, car weights and information pertaining to data files were made part of the test log

for each test conducted.

A two-man crew monitored all wayside activity throughout the series of tests. Signals from the

instrumented six (6) degree curve were monitored and recorded at times of test train passage for both

“dry” and lubricated trips. Tribometer readings were made prior to and following the passage of the test

train and normal revenue service trains. The readings were made in the vicinity of the instrumented curve

and at selected tangent locations throughout the test zone.

Descriptions of the manner in which each measurement was made are given in the following sections.

Section 2.1 will address on board measurements made of train performance parameters. All data

collected by Tranergy’s data collection system is described in Section 2.2. Wayside measurements are

detailed in Section 2.3.

2.1 TRAIN PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS

Train parameters recorded for the duration of the test, locations of sensors, and the channel assignments

used for the different data acquisition systems are indicated in Figure 2-1.
13

Figure 2-1. Data Acquisition System Assignments and Sensor Locations For

TOR Lubrication Evaluation Test
14

2.1.1 Speed

Speed was measured and recorded using three (3) independent sensors located on the Research Car. All

sensors utilized magnetic pickups to detect “teeth” located on the axle end caps. Rotation of the axle

results in the “teeth” passing through the fields of magnetic pickups, causing a pulse to be generated.

A “Qtron” brand speed sensor was used as the main measure of speed. Located on the trailing axle of the

lead truck, the Qtron sensor utilized 60 teeth and an “active” pick-up to measure speed. The term “active”

refers to the fact that the magnetic pick-ups were powered, resulting in a “square wave” style pulse. This

style sensor is contrasted to a “passive” pick-up speed sensor that employs unpowered magnetic pick-ups

within the sensor, resulting in an induced fluctuation in current being read by the sensor.

Similar sensors were used to provide secondary measurements of speed and to detect wheel slip. An

“active” speed sensor utilizing 100 teeth, referred to in Figure 2-1 as the “active speed”, was used as a

back-up to the Qtron speed sensor. A “passive” style speed sensor, employing 100 teeth to measure speed

was used primarily as a wheel slip indicator. The signal from this sensor, referred to in Figure 2-1 as the

“passive speed”, would drop to zero if the train experienced wheel slip while moving.

Speed was also measured using the GPS transmission. This speed resulting from the GPS signal was

used to confirm the readings taken with the sensors described above.

2.1.2 Drawbar Force

Drawbar force was measured and recorded continuously with the use of the instrumented coupler on the

Research Car. The coupler, used to join the car to locomotive 8709, had a range of 500,000 pounds and

could measure both draft and buff (tension or compression). The bridges on the coupler were zeroed and

“shunt calibrated” at the beginning of each test run.

Drawbar force, in combination with instantaneous speed, was used in the analysis phase of this study to

determine mechanical power expenditures throughout the series of tests.

2.1.3 Locomotive Electrical Power

Voltage and current produced by the main generator of each locomotive were monitored throughout the

test. Signals were picked up from available low voltage check points and recorded continuously by the

CSXT data acquisition system.

This data was intended to determine electrical power expenditures of the power units throughout the

series of tests.

2.1.4 Notch Dwell Times

Throttle position information was available from the locomotive’s electrical control circuit. Signals from

the control circuit were recorded by the data acquisition system on board the Research Car on a

continuous basis, resulting in a time history of the throttle settings. The notch dwell time information was

also available and recorded from the locomotive trip monitors.
15

2.1.5 Fuel Consumption

Turbine type fuel flow meters (Halliburton Company’s 1⁄2” Fuel Flow Meters) were used to determine the

amount of fuel used by each of the three (3) locomotives. Two meters were employed on each

locomotive – one applied in the engine fuel supply line and one applied in the fuel return line. The

difference between simultaneous readings of these meters indicated the amount of fuel used by the

engine.

Data from the six (6) meters were recorded manually by observing digital readout devices (Halliburton

Company’s LO-II Fuel Analyzers) located on board the Research Car. Readings were made as the test

train entered and exited each of the specified test zone segments. Readings were also made before and

after the train was stopped in order to account for fuel consumed during times when the power units were

idling.

2.1.6 Trainline Pressure

Train line air pressure was continuously monitored throughout the test. Dial gages indicating the pressure

of the brake system were observed during stop distance tests in order to ascertain the start of the braking

procedure.

Brake system pressure was also recorded by the CSXT and Tranergy data acquisition systems. A

pressure transducer was installed into the air brake line of the Research Car. Changes in pressure of the

brake system were indicative of the application of brakes to the Research Car and the rest of the consist.

2.1.7 Location Identification

As a means of recording the location of the test train within the data stream, a location identification

signal was utilized throughout the test. A circuit introduced a 7 volt signal when an event marker was

depressed. Throughout the duration of the test, a forward observer searched and depressed the event

marker upon passage of the milepost. The location of the test train could be arrived at within the data

stream by noting the number of location identification pulses from the start of data collection.

As noted in Section 2.0, GPS time was recorded by hand at the time of milepost passage. This was done

in order to synchronize the data stream collected by CSXT’s data acquisition system with that collected

by Tranergy’s data collection system. GPS signals were being recorded by Tranergy’s data collection

system on a continuous basis.

2.1.8 Dynamic Braking

The use of dynamic brake was monitored via the train line electrical signal. A dynamic brake ON/OFF

signal was continuously monitored and recorded by the data collection system in order to have a record of

the time history of dynamic brake usage.

The current used in dynamic braking was monitored in order to observe the difference in demand for

dynamic braking for lubricated and unlubricated conditions. Dynamic braking current and the current

from traction motor #2 were recorded on a continuous basis from both the SD60 locomotives. The SD40-

2 locomotive was not equipped with a system that readily provided for the direct measurement of the

current associated with dynamic braking. As a result of this deficiency, current used in dynamic braking

on the SD40-2 locomotive was not recorded.
16

2.1.9 Truck Hunting

In order to observe any occurrence of truck hunting, a triaxial accelerometer (Crossbow Model No.

CXL04M3, + /- 4g) was mounted on the leading edge of the center sill of the lead coal hopper

immediately behind the Research Car. Accelerometer output was monitored and recorded using a strip

chart recorder during empty runs in an attempt to determine the effect of lubrication on truck hunting.

2.1.10 Global Positioning Information

ENSCO provided two GPS systems for use with the separate data collection systems. GPS information

served as a synchronizing signal between the separate data systems. The GPS also provided means to

measure train speed independent of the systems present on the Research Car.

One GPS system was installed to provide information for use with the CSXT data acquisition system.

GPS time was recorded by hand at the time of milepost passage for use with data files recorded with the

data collection system. The other GPS system was installed to interface with Tranergy’s data acquisition

system. GPS signals were recorded with the data stream normally collected by Tranergy’s data collection

system.

2.2 LUBRICATION SYSTEM MEASUREMENTS

Tranergy monitored the performance of the lubrication system through a link between the SENTRAENJ

computer, the controlling device within the lubrication system, and a laptop PC based data acquisition

system utilizing Test Point data collection software. Although the lubrication delivery system was

located on the trailing locomotive, the Tranergy data collection system was located on the Technical

Research Car throughout the test.

Tranergy’s data acquisition system recorded train speed, track curvature, airbrake pressure, direction of

travel, lubricant temperature, lubricant consumption and the tonnage of train on a continuous basis. In

addition to the recorded parameters, Tranergy made observations of the headlight conditions and

monitored the manner in which the lubricant was dispensed onto the rails by use of a video camera. The

camera was directed at the lubricant delivery nozzle, with signals being viewed and recorded for future

study. The system monitoring showed that the system worked according to design throughout the testing

period.

Tranergy personnel also documented the readings of the trip monitor data made from the locomotive

computer. This information included notch dwell times (100s of hours), kilowatt-hours (kW-Hrs.) in each

notch settings and total trip kW-Hrs. The details of the trip monitor readings are discussed in Sections 3.1

and 3.6.
17

2.3 WAYSIDE MEASUREMENTS

2.3.1 Instrumented Curve

The test curve was instrumented, using wayside mounted lateral and vertical force instrumentation to

measure lateral force (L) and vertical force (V), as each axle of the trainset passed by. The test curve was

instrumented at two locations, one location being in the spiral of the curve and the other being in the body

of the curve, to measure L and V on both the high and low rails. For the cited test curve, the following

instrumentation was used:

• Lateral force strain gage measurement arrays; 1 array mounted on each rail in both the spiral and the

body of the curve for a total of 4 arrays

• Vertical force strain gage measurement arrays; 1 array mounted on each rail in both the spiral and the

body of the curve for a total of 4 arrays

• Datronics 9178 signal conditioning unit with bridge excitation, signal amplifier and filter

• IOTech’s DAQBook 100 analog/digital data acquisition system

• PC computer digital recording, data storage and display

• 12 V deep cycle car battery.

The instrumented rail site located within the body of the curve is shown in Figure 2-2. Instrumentation

used to record the bridge output signals is depicted in Figure 2-3.

Figure 2-2. Instrumented Rail Site Within Curve Body
18

Figure 2-3. Instrumentation Employed at Curve Site

2.3.2 Tribometer Measurements

Tribometer readings were taken on the top of the rails prior to and after train passage in order to

determine the extent of lubricant remaining on the rail by making comparisons of resulting friction

coefficient measurements. The tribometer was configured such that friction coefficients were measured

on the top of the rail within a region located one (1) inch from the gage side of the rail head. This

location corresponded to the region influenced by the lubricant. Tribometer readings were made at the

instrumented curve site and three (3) tangent locations within the test zone.

Figure 2-4. Tribometer Used for Determination of Friction Coefficients
19

Use of the tribometer resulted in a single value of friction coefficient for a sampled length of rail

measuring approximately ten (10) to twelve (12) feet. Four (4) to five (5) measurements were made at

each test location in order to record the spatial variation in friction. Figure 2-5 illustrates CSXT personnel

employing the tribometer at the instrumented curve site.

Figure 2-5. CSXT Personnel Using Tribometer

21

3.0 TEST RESULTS

Material presented within this chapter pertains to results of the series of tests. Information is organized by

areas of interest - namely notch dwell times, braking distance, tribometer measurements, curving forces,

fuel consumption, electrical energy, mechanical energy and truck hunting. Considerations of the data

made throughout analysis and any areas of concern with the testing or analysis will be highlighted. A

compilation of results and related discussions will be presented in Chapter 4.

3.1 NOTCH DWELL TIMES

Notch dwell time is a measure of throttle position and time in throttle. Dwell time was evaluated in order

to quantify the handling procedures used to control the train over the entire test zone. The dwell time was

also used in the evaluation of energy savings by considering the time spent in the higher notch settings,

settings that result in relatively higher fuel consumption.

Measurements of notch dwell time were obtained from the trip monitors and compared to values

measured with the data acquisition system on the Research Car. Many of the newer locomotives are

equipped with a computerized trip monitoring system. The system monitors the total kW-Hrs. of energy

used for the trip, throttle (or notch) position, time in throttle, kW-Hrs. used in each throttle position for

the trip, and the trip time. Readings of notch dwell time made from the monitors throughout the series of

tests were in agreement with those obtained with the data acquisition system. Results from the trip

monitors will therefore be presented in the assessment. Readings made from the monitors are

documented in Appendix E.

The average dwell times for each notch position, as well as for idle and dynamic brake settings, were

calculated for the lubricated test runs and compared to those determined for the unlubricated, or “dry”,

runs. Summaries of the average dwell times are given in the following tables and figures - Table 3-1

presents results pertinent to tests with loaded test trains with the results illustrated in Figure 3-1 while

Table 3-2 and Figure 3-2 present the corresponding information for the tests made with empty test trains.

When compared to the “dry-baseline” runs, the notch dwell times for the higher throttle positions,

specifically positions 7 and 8, were lower for the lubricated runs. For the loaded trips, six of the eight

throttle positions showed reduction in notch dwell times, and for the empty trips, five of the eight throttle

positions showed reductions in notch dwell times. The idle and dynamic brake times were found to be

longer for the lubricated runs than these times were for the “dry” runs. The differences in idle time reflect

differences in operations due to traffic conditions and other scenarios affecting the movement of the train.

The increase in time spent in dynamic braking mode can be attributed to the decreased rolling resistance

of the train during lubrication.
22

Table 3-1. Summary of Notch Dwell Times Obtained from Trip Monitor, Loaded Test Trains

Unlubricated Tests Lubricated Tests

Throttle

Position 100s of Hours

Run 2

100s of Hours

Run 4 Avg. 100s of HoursRun 3

100s of Hours

Run 5

100s of Hours

Run 6 Avg.

%

Reduction

From Dry

Runs

8 0.030 0.037 0.0335 0.033 0.034 0.029 0.0320 4.48

7 0.006 0.003 0.0045 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.0040 11.11

6 0.005 0.003 0.0040 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.0043 -8.33

5 0.006 0.002 0.0040 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.0043 -8.33

4 0.009 0.004 0.0063 0.003 0.004 0.006 0.0043 30.67

3 0.008 0.005 0.0065 0.004 0.005 0.008 0.0055 15.38

2 0.012 0.006 0.0088 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.0057 35.24

1 0.011 0.006 0.0080 0.007 0.009 0.005 0.0070 12.50

IDLE 0.083 0.041 0.0618 0.047 0.090 0.134 0.0900 -45.75

Dyn Brk 0.042 0.037 0.0395 0.041 0.046 0.045 0.0438 -10.97

Figure 3-1. Average Notch Dwell Times Recorded from Trip Monitors, Loaded Test Trains

Average Notch Dwell Time (100s of Hours), Loaded Test Trains

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Idle Dyn. Brake

Throttle Notch Settings

Time (100s of Hours)

Dry Runs

Lubricated Runs
23

Table 3-2. Summary of Notch Dwell Times Obtained from Trip Monitor, Empty Test Trains*

Unlubricated Tests Lubricated Tests

Throttle

Position 100s of Hours

Run 2

100s of Hours

Run 4 Avg. 100s of HoursRun 3

100s of Hours

Run 6 Avg.

%

Reduction

From Dry

Runs

8 0.019 0.017 0.0180 0.017 0.014 0.0155 13.89

7 0.005 0.004 0.0045 0.004 0.004 0.0040 11.11

6 0.004 0.005 0.0045 0.004 0.005 0.0045 0.00

5 0.005 0.007 0.0060 0.005 0.008 0.0065 -8.33

4 0.007 0.008 0.0075 0.005 0.010 0.0075 0.00

3 0.007 0.012 0.0095 0.008 0.009 0.0085 10.53

2 0.010 0.021 0.0155 0.010 0.013 0.0115 25.81

1 0.005 0.009 0.0070 0.002 0.010 0.0060 14.29

IDLE 0.066 0.068 0.0670 0.055 0.122 0.0885 -32.09

Dyn Brk 0.017 0.021 0.0190 0.018 0.021 0.0195 -2.63

*Empty trip readings for Run 5 were not taken, thereby eliminating this case from consideration when

looking at notch dwell times.

Figure 3-2. Average Notch Dwell Times Recorded from Trip Monitors, Empty Test Trains

Average Notch Dwell Time (100s of Hours), Empty Test Trains

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Idle Dyn. Brake

Throttle Notch Settings

Time (100s of Hours)

Dry Runs

Lubricated Runs
24

Energy consumption is generally greater in the higher throttle positions. Considering Tables 3-1 and 3-2,

it can be seen that dwell time for throttle position 8 was decreased 4.48 % when considering the loaded

test train and 13.89 % when considering the movement of the empty test trains. The dwell time for

throttle position 7 experienced a 11.11 % reduction when considering movements of both loaded and

empty test trains. Considering a round trip by averaging the results from the loaded and empty test trains,

the average reduction in dwell time for notch 8 was 9.19 % and 11.11 % for notch 7. These results are

illustrated in Figure 3-3.

Figure 3-3. Illustration of Reduction of Dwell Time in Throttle Positions 7 and 8

3.2 BRAKING DISTANCE MEASUREMENTS

Braking tests were conducted to ascertain the influence of the TOR lubricant on the ability to stop the

train. Two sections of track – one located between MP 321 and MP 325 and the other between MP 352

and MP 351 - were selected as sites for these tests due to the prevalence of tangent track at these

locations, accessibility of the sites to the wayside crew, and traffic logistics.

Thirteen (13) braking tests were conducted over the six (6) test runs. Of the thirteen (13) braking tests,

eight (8) employed full service brake applications and five (5) tests employed emergency brake

applications. Dynamic braking was used prior to brake application in order to control the speed of the

train. The stopping distance was measured using the distance counter located on the lead locomotive.

Target speeds were reached prior to entering the vicinity of the stop distance test and the brakes were

applied at predetermined mileposts with the distance counter being reset at the point of brake application.

After each braking test, Research Car personnel exited the car placed a “marker” on a nearby tie,

indicating the location at which the train had stopped. The stop distance recorded on board the lead

locomotive was later validated when the wayside crew measured the distance from the milepost to the

“marker” left after each test. Of the thirteen (13) tests, seven (7) tests were conducted with loaded test

trains, four (4) of which were employing TOR lubrication and three (3) of which were “dry.” Of the six

Percent Reduction in Throttle Position Dwell Times, Positions 7 and 8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Loaded Empty

Percent Reduction

Position 7

Position 8
25

(6) tests conducted with empty test trains, three (3) were run with TOR lubrication, leaving three (3) tests

to serve as baseline cases.

Track grade, a factor that has a significant effect on measured braking distance, was considered in the

analysis of the stop distances. The effect of grade can be determined and a correction to the stop distance

can be made so that comparisons can be made between various brake tests. The theory and method of

calculating the grade corrected stopping distance is presented in Appendix B.

Upon review of the data, it was determined that the full service brake application made during Stop

Distance Test 7, for a lubricated, empty train, was conducted while the throttle setting was gradually

decreased until the train came to rest. This resulted in powered braking, a situation that was atypical for

the test program. An attempt was made to correct for this in a manner similar to the one used for

corrections made in order to account for grades. The details of this method are also presented in

Appendix B.

A summary of braking tests conducted with loaded test trains is shown in Table 3-3. The comparable

information for tests conducted with empty test trains is provided in Table 3-4.

Table 3-3. Summary of Braking Distance Tests, Loaded Test Trains

(Train Weight ~12,700 Tons)

Location

(MP)

Grade

(%)

Braking

Distance

Test No.

Test

Run

Rail

Conditions

Speed

(MPH)

TOR

Lubricant

Status

Uncorrected

Stopping

Distance

(ft.)

Corrected

Stopping

Distance

(ft.)

Full Service Brake Applications

-0.55 2 2 Dry 30 “Dry” 3251 2074 322-323 -0.57 5 3 Damp 30 Lube 2634 1784

-0.11 3 2 Dry 30 “Dry” 2303 2132 352-353 -0.118 6 3 Damp 30 Lube 2047 1901

Emergency Brake Applications

-0.52 9 4 Dry 30 “Dry” 1136 957

322-323 -0.54 11 5 Dry 30 Lube 1303 1065

-0.51 13 6 Damp 29 Lube 1095 920

Table 3-4. Summary of Braking Distance Tests, Empty Test Trains

(Train Weight ~2,400 Tons)

Location

(MP)

Grade

(%)

Braking

Distance

Test No.

Test

Run

Rail

Conditions

Speed

(MPH)

TOR

Lubricant

Status

Uncorrected

Stopping

Distance

(ft.)

Corrected

Stopping

Distance

(ft.)

Full Service Brake Applications

0.117 1 1 Dry 40 “Dry” 1891 1969

324-323 0.117 4 2 Dry 40 “Dry” 1835 1908

0.117 8 3 Wet 40 Lube 1914 1994

352-351 0.14 7* 3 Wet 40 Lube 2376 1613

Emergency Brake Applications

0.44 10 4 Dry 38 “Dry” 971 1061 324-323 0.38 12 5 Dry 39 Lube 1201 1314

*Results corrected for the application of brakes with throttle set at Postion 8.
26

The braking distance results listed in Tables 3-3 and 3-4 are illustrated in Figure 3-4. It should be noted

that no slippage of the wheels was observed throughout any of the braking tests.

Figure 3-4. Stop Distance Test Results Conducted on Loaded and Empty Test Trains

Some notes should be made regarding the accuracy of these results:

• The manner in the brakes were applied in conjunction with the resetting of the distance counter

introduces the possibility that brake application did not occur precisely at the milepost listed

coincident with the zeroing of the counter. If the brakes were applied at 40 MPH within a range of ±

4 seconds about the time the distance counter was reset, an error of close to ± 235 feet could result. It

was felt that the possibilities of these discrepancies were minimized due to our coordination with the

crew throughout the series of tests.

• Results presented here indicate that the use of the TOR lubricant at the delivery rate used in this test

did not impact the ability of the crew to bring the train to a stop within approximately the same

distance as in normal operation.

Braking Distance Tests

Actual Distance and Distance Corrected for Grade and Powered Braking

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1

23

456

789

1011

12

13

Brake Test

Stopping Distance (ft.)

Uncorrected Stop Distance, 

Dry Run

Corrected Stop Distance, 

Dry Run

Uncorrected Stop Distance,

Lubricated Run

Corrected Stop Distance,

Lubricated Run

Full Service Braking

Emergency Braking

Rain Rain

Empty Train,

MP 324-323

Loaded Train,

MP 322-323

Empty Train,

MP 352-351

Loaded Train,

MP 352-353

Empty Train,

MP 324-323

Loaded Train,

MP 322-323
27

3.3 TRIBOMETER MEASUREMENTS

Tribometer measurements were made on the top of the rails (at a location one (1) inch from the gage side

of the head of the rail) before and after train passage. Use of the tribometer resulted in a single value of

friction coefficient for a sampled length of rail approximately ten (10) to twelve (12) feet long. Four (4)

to five (5) measurements were made at each test location in order to record the spatial variation in

friction.

Measurements were made at the instrumented curve site and three (3) tangent track locations. A wayside

lubrication device employed at the instrumented curve site, located approximately three hundred (300)

feet south of the curve, introduced excessive amounts of grease which resulted in large variations in the

measured friction coefficients in that region. The influence of wayside lubricators was not present at the

tangent track locations. Records of all measurements are presented in Appendix C.

Figure 3-5 shows the spatial variation in the friction coefficient measurements made on the high and low

rails of the instrumented curve before and after the empty test train passed through the wayside

lubrication device during Run 4. For this case, the TOR lubrication was not utilized and the weather

conditions were such that the rails were dry.

Figure 3-5. Friction Coefficient Measurements Made at Instrumented Curve Site, MP 234.7,

Results from Run 4 for Passage of Unlubricated, Empty Test Train

Friction Coefficient Measurements, Curve Site, MP 234.7

Run 4 -Unlubricated Empty Test Train; Dry Rail, T=32, H=55%

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

Xing 1

234

Crib 2 5

6789

10

Crib 1 11

Station

Measured Adhesion Coefficient

High Rail, Before Test Train

Passage

High Rail, After Test Train

Passage

Low Rail, Before Test Train

Passage

Low Rail, After Test Train

Passage
28

Since the test train was not making use of the TOR lubricant, this figure illustrates the change in friction

characteristics in the vicinity of the wayside lubricators due to normal traffic conditions. It can be seen

that the friction coefficient on both rails decreased at each station by approximately 0.10. Due to the

amount of lubricant dispensed on the south side of the instrumented curve, conclusions related to the

amount of TOR lubricant remaining on the rail could not be reliably drawn from data collected prior to

and following the passage of trains through the curve from the south.

Figure 3-6 presents the results from tribometer measurements made within the instrumented curve during

Run 4 for the test train passing from the north, thereby avoiding the wayside lubricators. In this case, the

test train was loaded but was not employing the TOR lubricant . It can be seen that friction coefficient

values on both rails increased from values near 0.40 to values close to 0.50. This increase may be caused

by the train “consuming” any lubrication present on the rail due to a train passing by the wayside

lubricator and through the site prior to sampling.

Figure 3-6. Friction Coefficient Measurements Made at Instrumented Curve Site, MP 234.7,

Results from Run 4 for Passage of Unlubricated, Loaded Test Train

Results depicted in Figure 3.6 should be compared to those presented in Figures 3-7a and 3-7b. Figure

3-7a is a plot of the measurements made during Run 3 before and after the passage of a loaded test train

employing the TOR lubricant. Figure 3-7b displays measurements made on the high rail during Run 6 for

a test train operating under the same conditions. It should be noted that the rails were dry during Run 3

and damp during Run 6. Traffic conditions prohibited measurements to be made on the low rail during

Run 6.

Friction Coefficient Measurements, Curve Site, MP 234.7

Run 4 -Unlubricated Loaded Test Train; Dry Rail, T~40

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

Xing 1

234

Crib 2 5

6789

Crib 1 10

Station

Measured Adhesion Coefficient

High Rail, Before Test Train

Passage

High Rail, After Test Train

Passage

Low Rail, Before Test Train

Passage

Low Rail, After Test Train

Passage
29

Figure 3-7a. Friction Coefficient Measurements Made at Instrumented Curve Site, MP 234.7,

Results from Run 3 for Passage of Lubricated, Loaded Test Train

Figure 3-7b. Friction Coefficient Measurements Made at Instrumented Curve Site, MP 234.7,

Results from Run 6 for Passage of Lubricated, Loaded Test Train

Friction Coefficient Measurements, Curve Site, MP 234.7

Run 3 - Lubricated Loaded Test Train; Dry Rail, T=45

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

Xing 1

23

Crib 2 4

5678

Crib 1 9

Station

Measured Adhesion Coefficient

High Rail, Before Test Train

Passage

High Rail, After Test Train

Passage

Low Rail, Before Test Train

Passage

Low Rail, After Test Train

Passage

Friction Coefficient Measurements, Curve Site, MP 234.7

Run 6 - Lubricated Loaded Test Train; Damp Rail, T=32, H=75%

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

Xing 1

234

Crib 2 5

678

Crib 1 9

101112

Joint 13

Station

Measured Adhesion Coefficient

High Rail, Before Test Train

Passage

High Rail, After Test Train

Passage
30

Results from the survey prior to and following the loaded test train utilizing the TOR lubricant exhibit an

overall decrease in the measured friction coefficient. Considering Figure 3-7a, it can be seen that the

most change can be seen in measurements made on the high rail, where friction coefficients measured

before train passage ranged from 0.41 to 0.47 and friction coefficients measured after train passage varied

between 0.33 and 0.39. Measurements made on the low rail ranged between 0.51 and 0.43 both before

and after test train passage. Similar results are evident in Figure 3-7b, where it can be seen that there was

a decrease in the friction coefficient measured after test train passage. These results may indicate that

there was TOR lubricant remaining on the high rail of the curve. It should be noted that the minimum

values found on the high rail after the lubricated test train were close to those shown in Figure 3-5 for the

measurements made before and after the passage of the test train through the test zone and the wayside

lubricators.

Due to the influence of the wayside lubricators, results of tribometer surveys conducted at the

instrumented curve should be considered only in the sense that they provide insight into typical friction

coefficients found within this route.

In order to judge the ability of the lubricant to be completely consumed by the consist, several tribometer

surveys were made on tangent track, thereby avoiding the influence of wayside lubrication. Results of

these tests varied, showing relatively no change in rail friction after train passage in some surveys and

decreases in rail friction after train passage in other surveys. Figure 3-8 shows the results of tribometer

measurements made at a tangent site for the loaded test train making a lubricated run. It can be seen that

there was virtually no change in the friction coefficient measured on the top of the rails due to the passage

of the test train. These results can be contrasted with those shown in Figure 3-9, where the friction

coefficient values on both rails decreased from values near 0.5 to values close to 0.3.

Figure 3-8. Friction Coefficient Measurements Made at Tangent Site, MP 311.25,

Results from Run 5 for Passage of Lubricated, Loaded Test Train

Friction Coefficient Measurements, Tangent Site, MP 311.25

Run 5 - Lubricated Loaded Test Train; Dry Rail, T~50

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

1234

Station

Measured Adhesion Coefficient

East Rail, Before Test Train

Passage

East Rail, After Test Train

Passage

West Rail, Before Test Train

Passage

West Rail, After Test Train

Passage
31

Figure 3-9. Friction Coefficient Measurements Made at Tangent Site, MP 351.67,

Results from Run 5 for Passage of Lubricated, Loaded Test Train

Average values of measured friction coefficients were calculated for all surveys. These values are

indicated in the Tables 3-5 and 3-6. Values reported in Table 3-5 were calculated based upon surveys

taken at the various tangent sites. Average friction coefficients indicated in Table 3-6 pertain to data

collected at the instrumented curve site.

Table 3-5. Average Friction Coefficient Measurements Before and After Train Passage,

Tangent Sites

Run

TOR

Lubricant

Status

Train

Condition Location

Weather/

Rail

Conditions

Avg. Coef.,

Rail 1

Before Train

Passage

Avg. Coef.,

Rail 1

After Train

Passage

Avg. Coef.,

Rail 2

Before Train

Passage

Avg. Coef.,

Rail 2

After Train

Passage

Comments

5 Yes Loaded

Fagin

Xing

MP

311.25

Dry Rail,

T~50 0.44 0.41 0.44 0.43

5 Yes Loaded MP

351.67

Dry Rail,

T~40 0.54 0.28 0.46 0.29

5 Yes Empty MP

348.67

Dry Rail,

T=68,H=52% 0.65 0.32 0.62 0.30

6 Yes Loaded

Fagin

Xing

 MP

311.25

Slightly

Damp Rail

T=38, H=77%

0.57 0.32 0.61 0.31

6 Yes Empty MP

351.67

Dry Rail,

T=37,H=65% 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.40

Friction Coefficient Measurements, Tangent Site, MP 351.67

Run 5 - Lubricated Loaded Test Train; Dry Rail, T~40

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

12345

Station

Measured Adhesion Coefficient

East Rail, Before Test Train

Passage

East Rail, After Test Train

Passage

West Rail, Before Test Train

Passage

West Rail, After Test Train

Passage
32

Table 3-6. Average Friction Coefficient Measurements Before and After Train Passage,

Instrumented Curve Site

Run

TOR

Lubricant

Status

Train

Condition Direction

Weather/

Rail

Conditions

Avg. Coef.,

High Rail

Before Train

Passage

Avg. Coef.,

High Rail

After Train

Passage

Avg. Coef.,

Low Rail

Before Train

Passage

Avg. Coef.,

Low Rail

After Train

Passage

Comments

- No Loaded/

Empty N’bound Drizzle,

T~40 0.56* 0.21* 0.48* 0.38*

Revenue service

trains; Samples taken

at random times.

3 Yes Loaded S’bound Dry Rail,

T=45 0.44 0.36 0.46 0.45 Wayside lube present.

4 No Loaded S’bound Dry Rail,

T~40 0.37 0.47 0.40 0.48 Wayside lube present.

4 No Empty N’bound Dry Rail,

T=32, H=55% 0.39 0.27 0.45 0.32 Wayside lube present.

5 Yes Loaded S’bound Dry Rail,

T=60, H=76% 0.40 0.34 0.31 0.37 Wayside lube present.

5 Yes Empty N’bound Dry Rail,

T=59, H=36% 0.39 0.27 - -

No time to do low

rail;

Heavy lube on rail

6 Yes Loaded S’bound Flurries,

T=32, H=75% 0.45 0.40 0.50 - No time to do low rail

after train.

6 Yes Empty N’bound Dry Rail,

T=54, H=55% 0.51 0.28 0.49 0.35 No excessive lube.

* Values correspond to samples taken randomly during passage of revenue trains (do not pertain to passage of particular train).

It should be noted that the measurements made near the wayside lubricators during normal revenue

service (presented in the first line of Table 3-6) indicate a wide range of friction coefficient values that

can be found under normal operating conditions. Values ranging between 0.21 and 0.56 were found at the

curve site due to the passage of normal traffic. The entries in the table for this particular survey do not

correspond to the passage of a single train. Results are presented in this manner to illustrate the range of

friction environments that can be encountered.
33

3.4 LATERAL CURVING FORCES

The objectives that were to be addressed by the measurements made at the instrumented curve site were

the assessment of the consumption of TOR lubricant under the train and the effect on curving forces

attributable to the use of the TOR lubricant. Due to two (2) difficulties that presented themselves

throughout the test, these objectives were not met.

As described in the previous section, a wayside lubrication device was located approximately three

hundred (300) feet south of the instrumented curve site. This lubricator introduced excessive amounts of

grease which resulted in large variations in the measured friction coefficients. The excessive grease also

introduced a large amount of uncertainty in the ability to discern the effect on curving forces attributable

to the TOR lubricant.

The development of a problem with the data collection system employed at the instrumented curve site

introduced a large amount of uncertainty into the force data at the site. The system would terminate data

collection after the passage of fifteen (15) to twenty cars (20). In order to collect data pertaining to the

entire test train, the system had to be restarted a number of times, with each restart resulting in a “gap” of

the force time history. This made the task of comparing loads for the same cars of the train under

different conditions difficult.

Due to the combination of events surrounding the collection of wayside force data, results stemming from

these measurements will not be presented within this document and no substantial conclusions regarding

the the extent of lubricant under the train and the reduction in curving forces can be drawn from wayside

force data. A number of studies have been conducted to quantify curving force reduction attributable to

the use of TOR lubricant1,2

. The reader is encouraged to consult these studies for information related to

this issue.

 

1

 Reiff, Richard P., Scott Gage & Sudhir Kumar. TOP-OF-RAIL LUBRICATION ENERGY TEST. U.S.

Department of Transportation Report Number DOT/FRA/ORD-98/01, February 1998.

2

 Runyon, Robert S. & Sudhir Kumar. TOP-OF-RAIL LUBRICATION. Presented at the 1996 Annual Meeting of

the Locomotive Maintenance Officers Association, September 16, 1996.
34

3.5 FUEL CONSUMPTION

3.5.1 Comparable Runs

In revenue service, it is generally not possible to have two complete runs of the same train on the same

track be very similar. The speed profiles and the number of stops vary depending on traffic and track

conditions. This makes comparisons of parameters, such as fuel consumption, difficult. It was with these

difficulties in mind that the test zone was divided into segments, as described in Section 1.3.1.

As a matter of convention, segments referred to by numbers 1 through 12 contain information for loaded

trains and segments referred to 13 through 24 provided information on the empty train (see Tables 1-1

and 1-2). All train performance related data gathered was plotted for each segment from Runs 2 through

6. The average speed, speed profile and the number of stops were then compared for “dry” and lubricated

runs for each segment. It was found that ten (10) paired run segments out of a total sixty (60) were

comparable for empty trains. For the loaded trains, fourteen (14) pairs of comparable segments were

found. Tables 3-7 and 3-8 summarize all comparable test runs. The tabulation of parameters used to

judge the comparability of all segments is given in Appendix D.

Table 3-7. Comparable Test Segments, Loaded Test Trains

Segment

Comparable Run

From Unlubricated

Tests

Comparable Run

From Lubricated

Tests

12 6

2 6 2 4 3

2 3 3 4 6

2 3 4 4 5

4 3 5 2 6

84 6

9 2

4

3

5

6

12 2

4

5

6
35

Table 3-8. Comparable Test Segments, Empty Test Trains

Segment

Comparable Run

From Unlubricated

Tests

Comparable Run

From Lubricated

Tests

13 2 5

14 4 5

16 2 5

17 4 5

2 5 19 4 3

20 2 3

22 4 3

23 4 6

24 2 6

3.5.2 Comparison of Fuel Meter Readings

As described in Section 2.1.5, turbine type fuel flow meters were used to determine the amount of fuel

used by each of the three (3) locomotives. Two meters were employed on each locomotive – one applied

in the engine fuel supply line and one applied in the fuel return line. The difference between

simultaneous readings of these meters indicated the amount of fuel used by the engine. Data from the six

(6) meters were recorded manually by observing digital readout devices located on board the Research

Car. Readings were made as the test train entered and exited each of the specified test zone segments.

Readings were also made before and after the train was stopped in order to account for fuel consumed

during times when the power units were idling.

Fuel meter readings were considered for the comparable cases listed in Tables 3-7 and 3-8. Fuel

consumption was calculated for each of the appropriate test segments. The details of these calculations

are included in Appendix D. Values of fuel consumption applying to unlubricated test cases were

compared to the corresponding cases for the lubricated tests. Fuel savings were determined for each of

the comparable segments. These are shown in Tables 3-9 and 3-10. As indicated below each table, the

average fuel savings observed with loaded trains was 10.13 % and that corresponding to the empty trains

was 5.35 %.
36

Table 3-9. Fuel Savings for Comparable Segments in Different Runs, Loaded Test Trains

Unlubricated Tests Lubricated Tests

Segment Run Fuel Consumed

(gallons) Run Fuel Consumed(gallons)

% Savings Average %

Savings

1 2 252 6 204 19.05 19.05

2 562 6 522 7.18 2 4 500 3 490 2.00 4.56

2 17 3 9 47.06 3 4 27 6 22 18.52 32.79

2 64 3 69 -7.81 4 4 62 5 50 19.36 5.77

4 588 3 554 5.78 5 2 556 6 557 -0.18 2.80

8 4 111 6 109 1.80 1.80

9

2

4

135

143

Avg. – 139

3

5

6

125

125

135

Avg. – 128

7.91 7.91

12

2

4

547

548

Avg. – 547.5

5

6

511

514

Avg. – 512.5

6.39 6.39

Overall Average From All

Segments 10.13

Table 3-10. Fuel Savings for Comparable Segments in Different Runs, Empty Test Trains

Unlubricated Tests Lubricated Tests

Segment Run Fuel Consumed

(gallons) Run Fuel Consumed

(gallons)

% Savings Average %

Savings

13 2 317 5 284 10.41 10.41

14 4 173 5 168 2.89 2.89

16 2 85 5 70 17.65 17.65

17 4 94 5 87 7.45 7.45

2 297 5 251 15.49 19 4 258 3 221 14.34 14.91

20 2 250 3 231 7.60 7.60

22 4 91 3 88 3.29 3.29

23 4 29 6 36 -24.14 -24.14

24 2 174 6 160 8.05 8.05

Overall Average From All

Segments

5.35
37

3.6 ELECTRICAL ENERGY

Measurement of the electrical energy is an accurate means to determine the energy requirements

associated with the movement the train. This measurement, as well as the determination of mechanical

energy, was made to serve as a compliment to results determined with fuel consumption measurements.

Fuel consumption over a distance is dependent on the manner in which the train was operated.

Compensation for this fact was made by considering only comaprable segments (see Section 3.5.1).

Direct measurements and determination of energy expenditures reflect the manner in which the train was

operated, thereby providing an accurate assessment of energy requirements.

As was done with assessment of notch dwell time, values of electrical energy expenditure were obtained

from the trip monitors and compared to measurements made with the data acquisition system on the

Research Car. Upon analysis of the signals originating on the lead locomotive, CSXT 8328, it was

decided that the electical energy outputs measured using the data acquisition system would not be

considered in the analysis. The signal to noise ratio from the main generator voltage and current

pertaining to the lead locomotive was not acceptable. Considering the fact that the trip monitor readings

served as a redundant measurement of the electrical signals from the remaining locomotives, it was

decided that attention be focused on trip monitor results.

Energy readings were recorded from the trip monitors located on the middle and trailing SD60

locomotives (units 8702 and 8709, respectively) throughout the series of tests. Measurements were not

recorded from the lead locomotive, SD40 unit 8328, due to the SD40’s computer lack of capability to

measure the kW-Hrs. and notch dwell time information. Data was recorded from the middle and trail

locomotives for the loaded trips and the trail locomotive for the empty trips. The middle locomotive was

“taken off-line”, or not used for power, during the return trips of the empty trains in keeping with standard

operating procedures of CSXT.

Data was gathered from the trip monitors for loaded and empty trips during Runs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. All

recorded data is provided in Appendix E.

Electrical energy data recorded from the trip monitors is shown in Table 3-11. The average electrical

energy outputs of locomotives pulling lubricated and unlubricated loaded trains are compared to those of

the locomotives pulling the lubricated and unlubricated empty trains. These comparisons are presented in

Table 3-12. It should be noted that data pertaining to the trip of the empty train conducted during Run 5

was not recorded. This was inadvertent.

Table 3-11. Electrical Energy Readings Made From Trip Monitor

kW-Hrs. From Unlubricated (Dry) Tests kW-Hrs. From Lubricated Tests

Trip

Number

Locomotive

8709

Loaded

Locomotive

8702

Loaded

Locomotive

8709

Empty

Total

For

Roundtrip

Locomotive

8709

Loaded

Locomotive

8702

Loaded

Locomotive

8709

Empty

Total

For

Roundtrip

2 12751 11561 9297 33609

3 11691 10377 8239 30307

4 12387 10386 9157 31930

5 12099 10412 * -

6 11359 10188 8503 30050

Average 12569 10974 9227 32770 11716 10326 8371 30179

*Empty trip readings for Run 5 were not taken, thereby eliminating this case from consideration when

looking at kW-Hr. expenditures for round trips.
38

Table 3-12. Summary of Average Electrical Energy Outputs Based on Trip Monitor Readings

Average kW-Hrs. From

Unlubricated (Dry) Tests

Average kW-Hrs. From

Lubricated Tests

Locomotive

8709

Loaded

Locomotive

8702

Loaded

Locomotive

8709

Empty

Locomotive

8709

Loaded

Locomotive

8702

Loaded

Locomotive

8709

Empty

Average of

Individual Cases 12569 10974 9227 11716 10326 8371

Average for

Locomotives Pulling

Loaded Test Train

11771 - 11021 -

Average for

Locomotives Pulling

Empty Test Train

- 9227 - 8371

Average Energy Savings, Loaded Trains 6.38 %

Average Energy Savings, Empty Trains 9.28 %

As can be seen in Table 3-12, the average electrical energy expended for unlubricated, or “dry-baseline”

runs was 11,771 kW-Hrs. for the trips made with the loaded train and 9227 kW-Hrs. for the trips made

with the empty train. The average electrical energy expended for the lubricated runs was 11,021 kW-Hrs.

for the trips made with the loaded train and 8371 kW-Hrs. for the trips made with the empty train.

Comparison of these results indicates that there was 6.38 % reduction in expended electrical energy for

the loaded lubricated runs and 9.28 % reduction in expended electrical energy for the empty lubricated

runs. An evaluation of the reduction in expended electrical energy for a “round-trip” consisting of one

movement of a loaded train and a return trip made with an empty train can be arrived at by totaling the

results from the loaded and empty movements of the train under each condition of lubrication and

comparing the results. Following through on this procedure will yield a 7.19 % reduction of expended

electrical energy for a round trip based on average measurements.

These findings are illustrated in Figure 3-10.

Figure 3-10. Average Electrical Energy Savings Arrived at Using Trip Monitor

Average Electrical Energy Savings, Trip Monitor

6.38

9.28

7.19

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Loaded Train Empty Train Round Trip

Percent Savings
39

Two items should be kept in mind when regarding these, as well as other, results:

• As pointed out in Section 1.3, the term “unlubricated” or a “dry” condition refers to the lack of TOR

lubricant. Locomotive flange lubricators and wayside lubricators were fully operational throughout

the tests. The results presented indicate the effect of the TOR lubricant over and above existing

lubrication practices.

• The numbers reported in this section correspond to results from two of the three locomotives used

throughout the tests. Although the results do not represent the total amount of electrical energy

expended in each run (due to the lack of information from the lead locomotive), comparisons of the

measurements do lend themselves to the evidence of the effect of the additional lubrication.
40

3.7 MECHANICAL ENERGY

Measurement of mechanical energy does not provide as accurate a measurement of energy requirements

as that of electrical energy. Mechanical energy measurements do not accurately capture energy

expenditures during initial movements of the train where friction, gravity and slack “take-up” can

contribute significantly. Mechanical energy does provide for data of interest in situations such as pulling

a consist up an incline and provides a point of comparison for electrical energy measurements.

Mechanical energy was calculated for all test segments in each of the six test runs. The drawbar force,

measured with the Research Car’s instrumented coupler, is combined with the train speed and the

duration of the drawbar force at a given speed. Since data was sampled at regular intervals, force duration

was easily determined. These quantities were combined in the following manner:

Force (lbs.) x Speed (MPH) x Time (Hours) = Mechanical Energy, lb.-miles

In order to convert mechanical energy to comparable units, the following constant is applied:

1 Kilowatt-Hour of mechanical energy = 502.681 lb.- miles 2

thus,

(Force [lbs.]/502.681) x Speed (MPH) x Time (Hours) = kW-Hrs.

Mechanical energy (in kW-Hrs.) was calculated for every segment within each trip. It should be restated

at this time that segments 1 through 12 represent the trips made with the loaded train and segments 13

through 24 represent the trips made with the empty train. The mechanical energy values determined for

all segments are given in Appendix F.

The average mechanical energy associated with each segment was determined for both “dry” and

lubricated runs. Comparisons of the findings are illustrated in Figure 3-11.

Figure 3-11. Average Mechanical Energy Values Determined for Each Segment of Test Route

 

2

 Reiff, Richard P., Scott Gage & Sudhir Kumar. TOP-OF-RAIL LUBRICATION ENERGY TEST. U.S.

Department of Transportation Report Number DOT/FRA/ORD-98/01, February 1998.

Average Mechanical Energy Determined for Dry and Lubricated Runs

Results from Individual Segments

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Segment No.

Avg. Mechanical Energy (kW-Hrs.)

Dry Runs

Lubricated Runs

Loaded Empty
41

Considering results pertaining to the loaded trains, average mechanical energy values under lubricated

conditions were observed to be lower than values under “dry” conditions in nine of the twelve segments.

Considering trips made with empty trains, six of the twelve segments exhibited lower values of average

mechanical energy under lubricated conditions than under “dry” conditions.

The average mechanical energy calculations, summarized in Table 3-13, show 7.53% less energy used

during the lubricated round trip runs than during the unlubricated, or “dry”, round trip runs. The “dry,” or

baseline, energy values (which averaged 27002.5 kW-Hrs.) were collected during Runs 2 and 4, while the

lubricated energy values (which averaged 24969.6 kW-Hrs.) were collected during Runs 3, 5 and 6.

Table 3-13. Average Mechanical Energy Calculations for Test Runs

Unlubricated Tests Lubricated Tests

Run 2 Run 4 Average Run 3 Run 5 Run 6 Average

% Savings

Based on

Avg. Results

Mech. Energy

(kW-Hrs.)

Loaded Trains

16586.5 13646.9 15116.7 12980.6 12996.9 15028.4 13668.6 9.58

Mech. Energy

(kW-Hrs.)

Empty Trains

12482.9 11288.6 11885.8 12006.5 10660.5 11236.0 11301.0 4.92

Total

Mech. Energy 29069.5 24935.5 27002.5 24987.1 23657.4 26264.4 24969.6 7.53

These results are illustrated in Figure 3-12.

Figure 3-12. Average Mechanical Energy Savings Calculated for Test Runs

Average Mechanical Energy Savings

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Percent Savings

Loaded

Train

Empty

Train

Total Mechanical

Energy

9.58

4.92

7.53
42

3.8 CRITICAL SPEED FOR TRUCK HUNTING

Lateral accelererations experienced on the leading hopper car were monitored for evidence of truck

hunting. The accelerometer was mounted to the center sill of the car and monitored during runs made

with the empty trains. Focusing on the empty, lead hopper provided an opportunity to observe a “worst

case” scenario, due to the fact that the lead car was exposed to the highest level of TOR lubricant.

No evidence of truck hunting was observed in the series of tests. The critical speed for the development

of unstable motion was evidently higher than 40 MPH, the top speed of the trains comprised of empty

hopper cars.
43

4.0 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Results discussed in the previous chapter are summarized and discussed within this chapter. All

conclusions that can be drawn from the discussions presented here will be summarized in Chapter 5.

The present discussion of the findings is written in response to the issues identified as the test objectives

(stated in Section 1.1). Results pertaining to safety related issues are discussed first and those pertaining

to performance related issues are discussed subsequently.

It should be noted that the tests were conducted under the following conditions:

• The unlubricated, or “dry”, rail condition was considered as one with the TOR lubrication system

turned off and both wayside and wheel flange lubricators operating fully. The lubricated rail

condition was one with the TOR lubrication system being employed in addition to the wayside and

flange lubricators. Changes or improvement in performance were thus measured over and above the

levels obtained by lubrication practices currently employed by CSXT.

• The TOR lubricant was delivered at one rate throughout the test (aside from a slight modification to

the system after the initial lubricated test). Therefore, all results presented here pertain to the

conditions corresponding to the single TOR lubricant delivery rate. The ramifications of dispensing

excessive amounts of TOR lubricant are outside the range of study conducted for this test.

4.1 SAFETY RELATED ISSUES

The safety related concerns that served as objectives for this investigation were:

• What is the effect of the lubrication system on train handling/speed control?

• What is the effect of the lubrication system on braking, including stop distance and wheel slip?

• What is the distribution of lubricant under the train, including the amount of lubricant remaining on

the rails following a train passage and its influence on subsequent traffic?

• What is the effect of the lubrication on the lateral curving forces?

The answers to these questions were sought by considering the results from the study of the notch dwell

times, the conduction of the stop distance testing, the tribometer surveys and the instrumented curve site

tests.

4.1.1 Effect of TOR Lubrication on Train Handling/Speed Control

The study of the notch dwell time is important to consideration of the train handling issues and the study

of the energy consumption. The results of the notch dwell time with respect to the handling of the train

will be addressed in this section. The impact of the notch dwell time study on the issue of energy

consumption will be addressed in Section 4.2.1.
44

Based on average results cited in the previous chapter, the dwell time for throttle settings 8 and 7

decreased 4.48 % and 11.11 %, respectively, for loaded trains when using the TOR lubricant. The dwell

time for throttle settings 8 and 7 decreased 13.89 % and 11.11 %, respectively, for the empty trains when

using the TOR lubricant. This indicates that the higher throttle settings were not needed “as much” when

utilizing the TOR lubricant.

The dynamic brake times were found to be longer for the lubricated runs than the times for the “dry” runs.

The increase in time spent in dynamic braking mode can be attributed to the decreased rolling resistance

of the train during lubrication. Readings made from the monitors are documented in Appendix E.

Speed control did not appear to be compromised with the use of the TOR lubrication. Results of notch

dwell time consideration are presented in Tables 4-1 and 4-2. The dwell time in each throttle position, as

well as idle time and time in dynamic braking, were determined as a percentage of the overall time in the

particular segment. Results of this consideration were then compared for the segments deemed

comparable in the fuel consumption study (the segments where the trains were operated in similar

manners). The number of throttle position changes and average speeds of the consist in each of the test

runs are also summarized in Tables 4-1 and 4-2.

As can be seen, there was little variation in the speeds when considering results from lubricated tests

against those from unlubricated tests. The number of throttle position changes did vary between

comparable runs, but there seems to be no pattern to this variation (i.e. lubricated test results were not

consistently higher or lower than unlubricated test results). This may indicate the difficulty in operating

the train in the same fashion during different test runs. The notch dwell times, as a percentage of total

time within the segment, did not vary significantly between the lubricated and unlubricated runs

considered. These results may indicate that the train handling was not adversely affected by the presence

of the lubricant.

Table 4-1. Summary of Average Speeds, Number of Throttle Position Changes and Percentage of

Dwell Times for Comparable Test Segments, Loaded Test Trains

Unlubricated Tests Lubricated Tests

Segment Run

Avg.

Speed

(MPH)

No. of

Notch

Changes

Notch Dwell Time

(% of Total

Segment Time)

Run

Avg.

Speed

(MPH)

No. of

Notch

Changes

Notch Dwell Time

(% of Total

Segment Time)

1 2 27.1 86

Pos1 2 Pos6 5

Pos2 3 Pos7 5

Pos3 3 Pos8 23

Pos4 4 Idle 4

Pos5 7 DB 44

6 33.4 64

Pos1 2 Pos6 5

Pos2 5 Pos7 3

Pos3 3 Pos8 26

Pos4 3 Idle 3

Pos5 4 DB 45

2 15.6 43

Pos1 0 Pos6 8

Pos2 1 Pos7 10

Pos3 3 Pos8 61

Pos4 7 Idle 0

Pos5 8 DB 0

6 15.0 29

Pos1 0 Pos6 8

Pos2 2 Pos7 5

Pos3 1 Pos8 78

Pos4 1 Idle 0

Pos5 5 DB 0 2

4 18.3 32

Pos1 1 Pos6 4

Pos2 1 Pos7 12

Pos3 2 Pos8 72

Pos4 3 Idle 0

Pos5 6 DB 0

3 18.7 44

Pos1 1 Pos6 14

Pos2 1 Pos7 8

Pos3 2 Pos8 66

Pos4 1 Idle 0

Pos5 7 DB 0
45

Table 4-1(cont.). Summary of Average Speeds, Number of Throttle Position Changes and

Percentage of Dwell Times for Comparable Test Segments, Loaded Test Trains

Unlubricated Tests Lubricated Tests

Segment Run

Avg.

Speed

(MPH)

No. of

Notch

Changes

Notch Dwell Time

(% of Total

Segment Time)

Run

Avg.

Speed

(MPH)

No. of

Notch

Changes

Notch Dwell Time

(% of Total

Segment Time)

2 20.0 8

Pos1 2 Pos6 0

Pos2 2 Pos7 0

Pos3 5 Pos8 0

Pos4 2 Idle 8

Pos5 0 DB 81

3 22.7 4

Pos1 1 Pos6 0

Pos2 1 Pos7 0

Pos3 2 Pos8 0

Pos4 0 Idle 3

Pos5 0 DB 93 3

4 17.3 11

Pos1 4 Pos6 1

Pos2 2 Pos7 2

Pos3 0 Pos8 0

Pos4 1 Idle 1

Pos5 1 DB 87

6 17.0 10

Pos1 1 Pos6 2

Pos2 3 Pos7 0

Pos3 4 Pos8 0

Pos4 3 Idle 1

Pos5 2 DB 85

2 29.4 23

Pos1 1 Pos6 2

Pos2 1 Pos7 2

Pos3 1 Pos8 10

Pos4 5 Idle 5

Pos5 3 DB 71

3 30.3 31

Pos1 1 Pos6 4

Pos2 2 Pos7 4

Pos3 6 Pos8 8

Pos4 2 Idle 3

Pos5 4 DB 66 4

4 22.9 30

Pos1 13 Pos6 1

Pos2 4 Pos7 1

Pos3 11 Pos8 6

Pos4 5 Idle 3

Pos5 1 DB 56

5 19.0 28

Pos1 6 Pos6 0

Pos2 5 Pos7 0

Pos3 5 Pos8 0

Pos4 9 Idle 3

Pos5 3 DB 70

4 23.5 78

Pos1 4 Pos6 1

Pos2 4 Pos7 1

Pos3 3 Pos8 46

Pos4 3 Idle 4

Pos5 2 DB 32

3 24.0 91

Pos1 4 Pos6 5

Pos2 2 Pos7 5

Pos3 3 Pos8 36

Pos4 5 Idle 4

Pos5 5 DB 32 5

2 21.1 49

Pos1 3 Pos6 3

Pos2 4 Pos7 3

Pos3 10 Pos8 25

Pos4 16 Idle 1

Pos5 6 DB 29

6 22.0 158

Pos1 3 Pos6 6

Pos2 6 Pos7 2

Pos3 7 Pos8 24

Pos4 7 Idle 6

Pos5 10 DB 29

8 4 18.3 16

Pos1 1 Pos6 1

Pos2 1 Pos7 1

Pos3 1 Pos8 25

Pos4 1 Idle 2

Pos5 1 DB 66

6 18.0 16

Pos1 1 Pos6 1

Pos2 1 Pos7 1

Pos3 1 Pos8 25

Pos4 1 Idle 3

Pos5 1 DB 66
46

Table 4-1(cont.). Summary of Average Speeds, Number of Throttle Position Changes and

Percentage of Dwell Times for Comparable Test Segments, Loaded Test Trains

Unlubricated Tests Lubricated Tests

Segment Run

Avg.

Speed

(MPH)

No. of

Notch

Changes

Notch Dwell Time

(% of Total

Segment Time)

Run

Avg.

Speed

(MPH)

No. of

Notch

Changes

Notch Dwell Time

(% of Total

Segment Time)

3 30.7 42

Pos1 2 Pos6 10

Pos2 3 Pos7 5

Pos3 4 Pos8 20

Pos4 13 Idle 5

Pos5 7 DB 31

2 30.4 38

Pos1 3 Pos6 5

Pos2 2 Pos7 7

Pos3 6 Pos8 24

Pos4 7 Idle 4

Pos5 14 DB 28

5 32.0 42

Pos1 3 Pos6 4

Pos2 2 Pos7 4

Pos3 10 Pos8 24

Pos4 8 Idle 4

Pos5 10 DB 31

9

4 31.0 33

Pos1 0 Pos6 12

Pos2 4 Pos7 5

Pos3 2 Pos8 32

Pos4 7 Idle 12

Pos5 5 DB 22

6 30.0 37

Pos1 2 Pos6 4

Pos2 5 Pos7 5

Pos3 7 Pos8 29

Pos4 7 Idle 3

Pos5 5 DB 34

2 24.6 40

Pos1 2 Pos6 4

Pos2 3 Pos7 11

Pos3 3 Pos8 27

Pos4 3 Idle 1

Pos5 6 DB 39

5 25.0 52

Pos1 1 Pos6 4

Pos2 2 Pos7 4

Pos3 2 Pos8 37

Pos4 2 Idle 2

Pos5 2 DB 44 12

4 25.2 57

Pos1 1 Pos6 3

Pos2 11 Pos7 1

Pos3 6 Pos8 41

Pos4 4 Idle 2

Pos5 2 DB 30

6 22.0 91

Pos1 3 Pos6 4

Pos2 6 Pos7 6

Pos3 4 Pos8 26

Pos4 5 Idle 8

Pos5 6 DB 31

Table 4-2. Summary of Average Speeds, Number of Throttle Position Changes and Percentage of

Dwell Times for Comparable Test Segments, Empty Test Trains

Unlubricated Tests Lubricated Tests

Segment Run

Avg.

Speed

(MPH)

No. of

Notch

Changes

Notch Dwell Time

(% of Total

Segment Time)

Run

Avg.

Speed

(MPH)

No. of

Notch

Changes

Notch Dwell Time

(% of Total

Segment Time)

13 2 34.3 82

Pos1 1 Pos6 5

Pos2 3 Pos7 10

Pos3 5 Pos8 34

Pos4 6 Idle 2

Pos5 10 DB 25

5 33.0 93

Pos1 8 Pos6 6

Pos2 7 Pos7 9

Pos3 10 Pos8 26

Pos4 6 Idle 7

Pos5 5 DB 17

14 4 44.9 53

Pos1 4 Pos6 5

Pos2 6 Pos7 5

Pos3 5 Pos8 52

Pos4 14 Idle 0

Pos5 10 DB 0

5 44.0 66

Pos1 6 Pos6 10

Pos2 6 Pos7 13

Pos3 5 Pos8 43

Pos4 4 Idle 2

Pos5 7 DB 2
47

Table 4-2(cont.). Summary of Average Speeds, Number of Throttle Position Changes and

Percentage of Dwell Times for Comparable Test Segments, Empty Test Trains

Unlubricated Tests Lubricated Tests

Segment Run

Avg.

Speed

(MPH)

No. of

Notch

Changes

Notch Dwell Time

(% of Total

Segment Time)

Run

Avg.

Speed

(MPH)

No. of

Notch

Changes

Notch Dwell Time

(% of Total

Segment Time)

16 2 42.0 27

Pos1 2 Pos6 7

Pos2 4 Pos7 20

Pos3 7 Pos8 25

Pos4 6 Idle 2

Pos5 5 DB 22

5 40.0 24

Pos1 0 Pos6 11

Pos2 8 Pos7 11

Pos3 10 Pos8 16

Pos4 14 Idle 4

Pos5 7 DB 19

17 4 24.1 30

Pos1 0 Pos6 5

Pos2 38 Pos7 3

Pos3 13 Pos8 34

Pos4 5 Idle 0

Pos5 2 DB 0

5 24.0 33

Pos1 2 Pos6 11

Pos2 34 Pos7 9

Pos3 13 Pos8 19

Pos4 4 Idle 2

Pos5 3 DB 33

2 30.9 160

Pos1 5 Pos6 6

Pos2 6 Pos7 8

Pos3 10 Pos8 21

Pos4 10 Idle 5

Pos5 6 DB 22

5 27.0 110

Pos1 8 Pos6 4

Pos2 10 Pos7 5

Pos3 6 Pos8 14

Pos4 7 Idle 7

Pos5 12 DB 28 19

4 33.8 194

Pos1 7 Pos6 10

Pos2 8 Pos7 6

Pos3 8 Pos8 19

Pos4 8 Idle 7

Pos5 8 DB 19

3 29.4 144

Pos1 0 Pos6 5

Pos2 13 Pos7 4

Pos3 12 Pos8 12

Pos4 7 Idle 13

Pos5 6 DB 27

20 2 33.3 68

Pos1 4 Pos6 7

Pos2 7 Pos7 10

Pos3 7 Pos8 19

Pos4 15 Idle 6

Pos5 10 DB 15

3 31.4 99

Pos1 0 Pos6 9

Pos2 6 Pos7 5

Pos3 9 Pos8 18

Pos4 6 Idle 8

Pos5 9 DB 29

22 4 25.2 11

Pos1 1 Pos6 1

Pos2 1 Pos7 1

Pos3 1 Pos8 79

Pos4 3 Idle 2

Pos5 1 DB 11

3 23.0 17

Pos1 0 Pos6 2

Pos2 2 Pos7 8

Pos3 4 Pos8 57

Pos4 9 Idle 4

Pos5 2 DB 12

23 4 19.1 23

Pos1 15 Pos6 0

Pos2 8 Pos7 0

Pos3 1 Pos8 1

Pos4 1 Idle 14

Pos5 0 DB 59

6 19.0 31

Pos1 2 Pos6 2

Pos2 3 Pos7 3

Pos3 4 Pos8 21

Pos4 3 Idle 2

Pos5 3 DB 57

24 2 23.8 94

Pos1 6 Pos6 9

Pos2 14 Pos7 5

Pos3 14 Pos8 10

Pos4 12 Idle 3

Pos5 6 DB 20

6 22.0 21

Pos1 54 Pos6 0

Pos2 23 Pos7 0

Pos3 0 Pos8 0

Pos4 0 Idle 9

Pos5 0 DB 15

Based on conversations with the locomotive engineers after the test run, train handling and speed control

of the train was found to be normal for all the test runs. One road foreman served as the locomotive road

foreman throughout the series of tests and as an engineer for several of the tests. During an informal

interview after Run 3, he commented that the train handled better when the TOR system was running than

it did when the system was off-line. He made the observation that the train seemed to pull “smoother”

with the TOR lubricant being dispensed. He reported no problem in train handling.
48

In light of these results and observations, it is felt that introduction of the TOR lubricant into operations

does not adversely affect train handling.

4.1.2 Effect of TOR Lubrication System on Braking

Thirteen (13) stop distance tests were performed – six (6) tests under unlubricated conditions and seven

(7) tests under lubricated conditions. Eight (8) of the tests involved full service braking while five (5) of

the tests involved emergency braking. Details and treatments are included in Appendix B.

Braking distances were measured with the distance measuring instrumentation on the lead locomotive.

Inaccuracies inherent to this method are discussed in Section 3.2). Initial test results were corrected for

the effects of grade and, in one case, for the occurrence of powered braking. Stop distances were

approximately the same for comparable cases of lubricated and unlubricated tests. Test results are

provided in Tables 3-3 and 3-4 and are summarized in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3. Summary of Stop Distance Test Results

Corrected

Braking Distance

(ft.)

Average Corrected

Braking Distance

(ft.)

Brake

Application

Train

Condition

Unlubricated Test Lubricated Test Unlubricated Test Lubricated Test

2074 1784 Loaded 2132 1901 2103 1843

1969

1994

Full Service 1908

Empty

- 1613

1982 1761

1065 Loaded 957 920 957 993 Emergency

Empty 1061 1314 1061 1314

The numbers listed in Table 4-3 indicate that the average corrected stopping distances were

approximately the same for “dry” and lubricated rail conditions for full service and emergency braking

conditions. The same observation can be made if one considers the uncorrected distances determined (see

Tables 3-3 and 3-4). The presence of the TOR lubricant does not seem to significantly increase the

distance required to stop the train. A number of cases documented in Table 4-3 exhibit a decrease in stop

distance when using the TOR lubricant. One possible explanation for this, offered by the vendor of the

TOR system, lies in the design of the lubricant. As described in Section 1.2, the lubricant is described as

a friction modifier, providing a reduction in friction under normal rolling wheel conditions but resulting

in an increase in friction under braking conditions. Testing of the lubricant in typical freight service

under a range of operating conditions wider than the one employed in this test would be necessary to

identify all possible contributions to the results found in this portion of the test program.
49

4.1.3 Distribution of TOR Lubricant

It was not possible to measure the distribution of lubricant under the train directly. The intent of the

investigators was to assess the distribution of the lubricant by considering the following:

• Tribometer measurements prior to and following the passage of the test train would identify the

situation where the lubricant was not completely consumed over the length of the train.

• The comparison of the curving forces resulting from the train using the TOR lubricant to the forces

generated by the train employing no TOR lubrication. If any difference in curving forces between the

two operating conditions were evident, comparison of the forces along the length of the train could

indicate a location at which the lubricant ceased to result in a difference in operating loads.

The results from the wayside instrumentation did not provide adequate information to assess the

distribution of the lubricant. As discussed in Section 3.3, tribometer measurements made in the vicinity

of the instrumented curve did not reveal detailed information regarding any remaining TOR lubricant on

the rail due to the presence of the wayside lubricators. However, information collected during the

tribometer surveys and wayside observations can lend insight to the issue of lubricant remaining on the

rail after train passage.

It was difficult to identify the influence of TOR lubricant from tribometer measurements taken on top of

the rails within the instrumented curve due to the presence of the grease from the wayside lubricator. On

tangent track, however, it could be seen that the friction coefficient measured after the passage of the train

was generally lowered to values between 0.30 to 0.40. Considering measurements made throughout the

series of tests at several locations, including the instrumented curve, friction coefficients measured on the

rails prior to the passage of the test train employing the TOR lubricant ranged from 0.19 to 0.68; the

friction coefficient measured after the passage of the test train employing the TOR lubricant ranged from

0.25 to 0.53. Figure 4-1 illustrates the range of all of the friction coefficient values measured prior to and

following the passage of the test train. Considering Figure 4-1, it can be seen that the use of the TOR

lubricant does not introduce friction coefficients that are outside the range of values of coefficients that

are found in a typical operating environment.

Figure 4-1. Illustration of Range of Measured Friction Coefficients

Range of Tribometer Measurements

Prior to and Following Train Passage

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

Measured Friction Coefficient

Before Train After Train

0.68

0.19

0.25

0.53
50

It was possible to observe the rail prior to and following train passage at the curve site and on tangent

track. The rail generally looked clean to the naked eye during all the tests. At the instrumented curve

site, where a large number of the top of rail surface observations were made, the wayside lubricators

dispensed a significant amount of grease. Each time a train approached from the south, it traversed this

wayside lubricator and introduced grease for a considerable distance. This made it difficult to observe the

effect of the TOR lubricant on the curve. On tangent track the surface of the rail was also generally clean;

occasionally, a very thin film of lubricant was observed when the rail surface was rubbed by hand.

Brief interviews were conducted with the engineer of the pusher locomotives used on Duff Mountain.

The engineer reported normal operation of the pushers while assisting the test train employing the TOR

lubricant. Subsequent trains did not report anything unusual throughout the test zone; however,

systematic reports from subsequent trains were not gathered.

Results indicate that there was no appreciable loss in top of rail friction for the continued good handling

of subsequent trains. Use of the TOR lubricant did not result in friction coefficients lower than those

found under typical operating conditions. Brief interviews indicated that train operation seemed

completely satisfactory. It should be noted that these results pertain to a given delivery rate. A slightly

lower rate of TOR lubricant application would be considered an improvement in performance in terms of

the friction measurements made on the rail. A slightly higher rate of TOR lubricant may have adverse

effects on train operations.

Details of all measurements made with the tribometer are provided in Appendix C.

4.1.4 Effect of TOR Lubrication on Lateral Curving Forces

Lateral and vertical force measuring bridges were installed within the spiral and body of a six (6) degree

curve in order to record curving forces for the lubricated and unlubricated test trains. As discussed in

previous sections, there were several difficulties collecting data at the instrumented curve site. These

difficulties included:

• The presence of wayside lubricators adjacent to the instrumented curve site; the lubricators dispensed

an amount of grease sufficient to cover the top of rail for two to three hundred feet, making it difficult

to evaluate the influence of the TOR lubricant on the curving forces generated on the rail.

• The development of a problem with the data collection system employed at the instrumented curve

site; the system would terminate data collection after the passage of fifteen (15) to twenty cars (20).

In order to collect data pertaining to the entire test train, the system had to be restarted a number of

times, with each restart resulting in a “gap” of the force time history making it difficult to compare

loads for the same cars of the train under different conditions.

A slight reduction in lateral forces was observed (by looking at numerical readouts at the site) for the

northbound, empty trains. The empty trains were not affected as significantly as were the loaded test

trains. This observation, combined with the earlier observations by CSXT, NS and AAR/TTCI1,2

,

suggests that there was a reduction of lateral loads in these tests, but no evidence of that occurrence is

available.

 

1

 Reiff, Richard P., Scott Gage & Sudhir Kumar. TOP-OF-RAIL LUBRICATION ENERGY TEST. U.S.

Department of Transportation Report Number DOT/FRA/ORD-98/01, February 1998.

2

 Runyon, Robert S. & Sudhir Kumar. TOP-OF-RAIL LUBRICATION. Presented at the 1996 Annual Meeting of

the Locomotive Maintenance Officers Association, September 16, 1996.
51

4.2 PERFORMANCE RELATED ISSUES

The performance related concerns that served as objectives for this investigation were:

• What energy savings can be expected from the use of the lubricant system for a range of typical trains

in freight service?

• What is the effect of the lubrication system on the critical speed for truck hunting?

The ability to judge the TOR lubricant system’s impact on energy expenditures depended on the

measurements of the following parameters:

• Locomotive notch dwell times, assessed using readings made from the trip monitors on two of the

three locomotives;

• Fuel consumption;

• Electric energy, assessed using the readings made from the trip monitors on two of the three

locomotives;

• Mechanical energy;

The results from these studies, as well as observations made during consideration of truck hunting

phenomena, are discussed in the following sections.

4.2.1 Locomotive Notch Dwell Times

An important indicator of energy consumption is the duration for which the locomotives dwell in higher

notches. Notch 8 and 7 use a major portion of the energy used by the locomotives. For the whole trip,

the average reduction of notch 8 dwell time was found to be 9.19 % and that for notch 7 was 11.11 % as

recorded in the locomotive trip monitor.

4.2.2 Fuel Consumption

Flow meters were put into the supply and return fuel lines of each locomotive. Meter readings were taken

for each locomotive as the test train passed into or out of a test segment and every time the test train

started and stopped. Taking readings in this matter not only allowed for the calculation of the fuel used in

each test segment but accounted for fuel consumed during idle time.

There were considerable differences from trip to trip in the number of stops and the average speeds

achieved within a given segment. For example, a broken rail encountered during Run 6 necessitated long

slow orders and many stops. Therefore, the comparison of fuel consumption was a complicated process.

The average speed, speed profiles and number of stops were analyzed and compared between “dry” and

lubricated test runs throughout all test segments. Those segments deemed comparable were identified (as

summarized in Tables 3-7 and 3-8) and fuel savings were calculated based upon consumption within

these segments. Detailed records of the fuel monitor readings and considerations of parameters used to

identify comparable segments are included in Appendix D.
52

The average fuel savings found while considering comparable runs of the loaded test train was 10.13%,

while the average fuel savings for the empty test train was 5.35 %. The average of these two,

corresponding to a round trip, was determined to be 7.74 %. These results are detailed in Tables 3-9 and

3-10.

As a second manner of assessing fuel savings, the fuel consumed over an entire trip was calculated from

the flow meter readings for each test run and comparisons were made between lubricated and

unlubricated trips. This manner of consideration differs from that method previously cited in that no

comparable segments or test zones were identified – this is reflective of the typical operation of freight

service. This method neglects the contributions of fuel consumed in stops and differences in the speed

profile including average speed and number of stops. The average fuel savings found for the loaded test

train was 2.60 %, while that determined for the empty train was 5.80 %. The combination of these two

results yields an average percentage of savings equal to 4.20 %.

Regardless of the method used to compare fuel consumption between test cases, it is evident that savings

in fuel consumption may be realized by employing the TOR lubrication.

4.2.3 Electrical Energy

Electrical energy consumption was measured using two methods. The first method was to measure the

electrical voltage and current used by each locomotive, continually recording these values in the test car

for all the test runs. Unfortunately, the recorded data was deemed unusable. The second method used

yielded useful results. In this method, the locomotive trip monitor was used to determine electrical

energy.

Using the trip monitor readings as the primary source of data, the electrical energy savings produced for

the two SD60 locomotives by the SENTRAEN 2000 system were 6.38 % for loaded trains, 9.28 % for

empty trains and 7.19 % for the total trip. These savings were representative of energy reductions above

those resulting from the use of flange lubrication.

4.2.4 Mechanical Energy

Mechanical energy was calculated from the drawbar force, monitored by the instrumented coupler on the

research car, and speed using basic integration methods. The mechanical energy savings based upon

average results from each of the test runs was 9.58 % for considerations of the loaded train and 4.92 %

when considering the tests conducted with the empty trains. Mechanical energy savings based upon

average results were determined to be 7.53 % when considering a round trip.

These results can be affected by the manner in which the train was operated during a particular run. The

mechanical energy calculation procedure automatically eliminates the consideration of stops because no

mechanical work is done when the train is not moving. It does not, however, take into account the

differences due to the number of stops or the average speed of the train. For example, the mechanical

energy calculated for the loaded train during run 6, a lubricated run, seems to have been affected by long

slow orders, necessary due to the occurrence of a broken rail. The mechanical energy calculated for the

loaded test train during run 6, 16441.07 kW-Hrs., is markedly higher than the energy determined for the

corresponding case found in runs 3 and 5, the other lubricated test runs (14,200.74 and 14,218.66 kWHrs. respectively).

Records of the mechanical energy calculations are included in Appendix F.
53

4.2.5 Comparison of Energy Reductions

Energy savings were determined using several methods. Results from the different methods used are

summarized in Table 4-4 and illustrated in Figure 4-2. The average savings, based upon the results using

the different methods, are illustrated in Figure 4-3. The average energy savings pertaining to round trips

determined by the various methods was 7.83 %.

Table 4-4. Percentage of Energy Reduction Determined by Various Methods

Basis of

Comparison Method

% Reduction,

Loaded Test

Train

% Reduction,

Empty Test

Train

% Reduction,

Round Trip

Dwell Time,

 via Trip Monitor,

Notch 8

4.48 13.89 9.19 Locomotive

Notch Dwell

Time Dwell Time,

via Trip Monitor,

Notch 7

11.11 11.11 11.11

Consideration of

 Total Trip 2.60 5.80 4.20

Fuel

Consumption Consideration of

Comparable

Segments

10.13 5.35 7.74

Electrical

Energy

Consideration of

Trip Monitor

Results

6.38 9.28 7.19

Mechanical

Energy

Calculated from

Time History of

Train Parameters

9.60 4.90 7.53

Overall Average,

All Methods 7.38 8.39 7.83
54

Figure 4-2. Illustration of Energy Reduction Determined by Various Methods

Figure 4-3. Illustration of Average Energy Reduction

Energy Reductions Using Various Methods

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

 Electrical Energy, 

(Two Loco.)

 Dwell Time, 

Notch 8

 Dwell Time, 

Notch 7

 Fuel Consumption, 

Total Trip

Fuel Consumption,

Comparable Segments

Mechanical Energy

Energy Reduction, Percent

Loaded

Empty

Total

Average Energy Reduction, Various Methods

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Loaded Empty Total

Energy Reduction, Percent
55

4.2.6 Effect of TOR Lubrication on Truck Hunting

The center sill of the hopper car located behind the Research Car was instrumented with an accelerometer

in order to assess the effect of TOR lubrication on truck hunting. Accelerometer signals were monitored

using a strip chart recorder during movements of the empty cars.

During the present series of tests, speeds were not high enough for the train to develop hunting in either

the “dry” or lubricated rail conditions (the speed of the empty train was restricted to 40 MPH). No

evidence of truck instability was observed during the tests. Therefore, no conclusion could be drawn in

this area.

57

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

A top-of-rail (TOR) lubrication system, the SENTRAEN 2000 manufactured by the Tranergy

Corporation, was tested in order to investigate the use of the system in typical revenue service. All

lubricated and unlubricated tests were conducted while using wayside lubrication devices and flange

lubricators. All results correspond to a single lubrication delivery rate. Observations made during the

tests and analyses of the test data lead to the following conclusions:

• Train Handling: The use of the TOR system did not appear to negatively affect either train handling

or speed control. This was evidenced by consideration of the average speeds, notch dwell times and

the number of throttle position changes through comparable test zone segments. Testimonials from

personnel associated with the test confirm this finding. The locomotive road foreman in charge of the

tests reported that he liked the system due to improved train handling, including a smoother ride.

• Braking Performance: Braking performance was found to be safe for the lubricant rate employed

during this series of tests. Stopping distances were approximately the same for lubricated and

unlubricated rail conditions for full service and emergency braking of loaded and empty trains. This

was evidenced by measured distances as well as the same distances corrected for grade and power

application. Full service brake applications showed a decrease in stopping distance when employing

the TOR lubrication, with average reductions on the order of 200 feet. It should be emphasized that

these particular results pertain to these tests and that reductions of this magnitude are not necessarily

universal. There was no occurrence of wheel slip during any of the thirteen (13) braking tests

conducted.

• Lubricant Distribution and Consumption: Results from top of rail tribometer surveys were mixed,

with some surveys showing no change in friction coefficients measured on the rail following the

passage of the test train and some showing a decrease in measured friction coefficients. On a few

occasions, a thin film could be felt by touch of a finger on the rail head after the test train had passed.

While several decreases of friction coefficient, ranging between 0.03 and 0.30, were measured during

the surveys, friction coefficient measurements made at the designated curve location revealed no

significant difference between the changes in friction due to the passage of normal revenue trains and

changes in friction corresponding to the passage of the test train employing the lubrication system.

Based on measurements made at the curve site that focused on normal revenue service trains, average

friction coefficient measurements ranged between 0.37 and 0.56 before the train passage and between

0.21 and 0.48 after train passage. In comparison, measurements made at the same location for trains

employing TOR lubricant ranged between 0.31 and 0.51 before the passage of the trains and between

0.27 and 0.45 after the passage of the trains. Engineers operating pusher locomotives used for the

fifteen mile 1% grade found the operation of the locomotives to be quite normal when assisting the

test trains using the TOR lubricant. Subsequent trains did not report anything unusual throughout the

test zone; however, systematic reports from subsequent trains were not gathered.

• Energy Savings: Performance related issues focused largely on energy expenditures with savings

being determined using a variety of methods. Energy savings for a round trip of the test train ranged

from 4.20 % to 11.11 %, depending on the method of evaluation used. The average energy savings

for a round trip, found by averaging the results from different methods, was determined to be 7.83 %.

There was a 7.74 % savings in fuel consumption realized when results from comparable test segments

were combined for a round trip (i.e. by disregarding results from segments where the train was

operated in significantly different manners). It should be kept in mind that electrical energy results

were based upon two locomotives. It must be emphasized that differences in performance of the test

train between the lubricated and unlubricated test runs were determined as a percentage above the

levels obtained by using wayside and flange lubrication.
58

Information related to the following issue was not observed during this series of tests:

• Wheel/Rail Interaction: An evaluation of the effect of the TOR lubricant on curving forces based on

this series of tests was not possible. This was due to the employment of wayside lubrication in the

vicinity of the instrumented curve and data acquisition system problems. No evidence of truck

instability was observed during the tests and, therefore, no conclusion could be drawn regarding the

effect of the TOR lubricant on the critical speed for truck hunting. During the series of tests, speeds

were restricted to 40 MPH, a speed below that necessary to develop hunting under either “dry” or

lubricated rail conditions.
59

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER TESTING

Upon completion of this series of tests, a number of recommendations were arrived at that would address

issues identified in this round of testing:

• Efforts to investigate curving forces and friction coefficient changes should be done in an area that

does not employ wayside lubrication. During this investigation, wayside lubrication affected the

results of the test by making it difficult to “separate” the influence of the TOR lubrication from that of

the lubrication employed at the wayside site.

• Efforts should be made to test the TOR lubrication on a test train that does not employ flange

lubricators. Conducting a test in this manner in an area that does not employ wayside lubrication

would not only eliminate the effects of other lubricants on test results, it would quantify savings

realized by using the TOR lubrication system only. This would allow for direct comparison to

savings that result from the use of conventional lubrication methods.

• Accommodations should be made that will allow for a test train to run on track permitting higher

operating speeds so that truck hunting could be investigated. Testing of this nature may require the

use of a dedicated test track. Allowance of testing at a wide range of speeds may be a reasonable

means to investigate the effect of lubrication on truck dynamics.

• Interest may exist in conducting similar tests at a variety of lubrication system settings and operating

conditions. Tests of this nature could employ the following:

- A range of lubrication delivery rates. Employing a variety of lubrication delivery rates for

similar tonnages would address issues associated with the presence of excess lubrication due to

human error. An example of this situation is the input of erroneous information, such as incorrect

tonnage. Tests under these conditions should investigate braking performance and truck steering

characteristics.

- The application of lubricant to one rail only. Dispensing lubricant on one rail addresses the

situations in which a lubricant delivery line becomes severed or the case where a nozzle becomes

obstructed. Tests under these conditions should investigate curving forces, braking performance

and truck steering characteristics.

- Testing of the lubricant in cold and warm environments. A series of tests could be conducted to

determine the effect of large changes in ambient temperature on the operation of a train

employing the lubricant system at a given setting. This would address the scenario of a train,

employing the system dispensing lubricant at a fixed flow rate, moving from a warm climate to a

cold climate (or vice-versa) without modifications to the system settings being made. Tests of

this nature could be conducted with a given set of system settings in different climates over

similar terrains or over the same test zone at different times of the year. Tests should determine

the effect of the change in environment on train handling, braking performance, lubricant

distribution and the generation of curving forces.

A-1

APPENDIX A

SUMMARY OF TESTS
A-2

Run: 1 Top of Rail Lubricant: Yes x No

Dates: 2/16/98 to 2/17/98 Trip Time: 14:07 Train No.: N25315 Tonnage: 12639 Brake Tests: None

Test Zone

Segment

Starting

Milepost

Ending

Milepost

No. of

Stops

Weather

Conditions

Train Handling

Issues

Data Gathering

Issues

1 178 203 0 Clear Loco. 8709 on-line, not

loaded, corrected.

Research Car not connected

to trainline signals.

2 203 218 1 Clear Stopped for pusher train at

base of Duff Mt.

3 218 224 0 Clear

4 224 238 1 Clear

5 238 276 2 Clear

6 276 321 4 Clear

7 321 325 1 Clear

8 325 334 1 Clear

9 337 350 0 Light Rain

10 350 356 0 Light Rain

11 356 379 1 Clear

12 379 421 1 Rain

Dates: 2/17/98 to 2/18/98 Trip Time: 14:00 Train No.: N25315 Tonnage: 2389 Brake Tests: MP 324 – 323

Test Zone

Segment

Starting

Milepost

Ending

Milepost

No. of

Stops

Weather

Conditions

Train Handling

Issues

Data Gathering

Issues

13 421 379 3 Clear Shut down Loco. 8709 for

return trip.

14 379 356 0 Clear

15 356 350 0 Clear

16 350 337 0 Clear

17 334 325 0 Light Rain Turned on Loco. 8709,

isolated Loco. 8702.

18 325 321 1 Clear Stop Distance Test

19 321 276 1 Rain

20 276 238 1 Light Rain

21 238 224 0 Clear

22 224 218 0 Light Rain

23 218 203 0 Clear

24 203 178 0 Clear
A-3

Run: 2 Top of Rail Lubricant: Yes x No

Dates: 2/19/98 to 2/20/98 Trip Time: 16:27 Train No.: N25318 Tonnage: 12635 Brake Tests: MP 322 –323, 352–353

Test Zone

Segment

Starting

Milepost

Ending

Milepost

No. of

Stops

Weather

Conditions Train Handling Issues Data Gathering Issues

1 178 203 0 Light Rain

2 203 218 1 Clear Stopped for pusher train at

base of Duff Mt.

3 218 224 0 Clear

4 224 238 0 Clear

5 238 276 2 Clear

6 276 321 2 Clear

7 321 325 1 Clear Stop Distance Test

8 325 334 0 Clear

9 337 350 0 Clear

10 350 356 1 Clear Stop Distance Test

11 356 379 0 Clear

12 379 421 2 Clear

Dates: 2/20/98 to 2/20/98 Trip Time: 14:46 Train No.: N25318Tonnage: 2389 Brake Tests: MP 324–323

Test Zone

Segment

Starting

Milepost

Ending

Milepost

No. of

Stops

Weather

Conditions Train Handling Issues Data Gathering Issues

13 421 379 2 Light Rain Shut down Loco. 8702 for

return trip.

14 379 356 1 Clear

15 356 350 1 Clear

16 350 337 0 Clear

17 334 325 0 Clear

18 325 321 1 Clear Stop Distance Test

19 321 276 2 Clear

20 276 238 0 Clear

21 238 224 0 Clear

22 224 218 0 Clear

23 218 203 2 Clear

24 203 178 1 Clear
A-4

Run: 3 Top of Rail Lubricant: x Yes No

Dates: 2/22/98 to 2/22/98 Trip Time: 14:18 Train No.: N25321 Tonnage: 12668 Brake Tests: MP 322–323, 352–353

Test Zone

Segment

Starting

Milepost

Ending

Milepost

Number

of Stops

Weather

Conditions Train Handling Issues Data Gathering Issues

1 178 203 0 Fog

2 203 218 1 Clear Stopped for pusher train at

base of Duff Mt.

3 218 224 0 Clear

4 224 238 0 Clear

5 238 276 1 Clear

6 276 321 0 Clear

7 321 325 1 Clear Stop Distance Test

8 325 334 1 Clear

9 337 350 0 Clear

10 350 356 1 Clear Stop Distance Test

11 356 379 0 Clear

12 379 421 1 Light Rain

Dates: 2/23/98 to 2/23/98 Trip Time: 13:15 Train No.: N25321 Tonnage: 2389 Brake Tests: MP 352–351, 324–323

Test Zone

Segment

Starting

Milepost

Ending

Milepost

Number

of Stops

Weather

Conditions Train Handling Issues Data Gathering Issues

13 421 379 2 Light Rain Shut down Loco. 8702 for

return trip.

14 379 356 1 Light Rain

15 356 350 1 Rain Stop Distance Test

16 350 337 0 Clear

17 334 325 0 Rain

18 325 321 1 Rain Stop Distance Test

19 321 276 0 Clear

20 276 238 0 Clear

21 238 224 2 Rain

22 224 218 0 Rain

23 218 203 1 Rain

24 203 178 3 Rain
A-5

Run: 4 Top of Rail Lubricant: Yes x No

Dates: 2/24/98 to 2/25/98 Trip Time: 13:20 Train No.: N27223 Tonnage: 12643 Brake Tests: MP 322–323

Test Zone

Segment

Starting

Milepost

Ending

Milepost

Number

of Stops

Weather

Conditions Train Handling Issues Data Gathering Issues

1 178 203 2 Clear

2 203 218 1 Clear Stopped for pusher train at

base of Duff Mt.

3 218 224 1 Clear

4 224 238 2 Clear

5 238 276 1 Clear

6 276 321 0 Clear

7 321 325 1 Clear Stop Distance Test

8 325 334 1 Clear

9 337 350 0 Clear

10 350 356 0 Clear

11 356 379 1 Clear

12 379 421 2 Clear

Dates: 2/25/98 to 2/26/98 Trip Time: 15:23 Train No.: N27223 Tonnage: 2390 Brake Tests: MP 324–323

Test Zone

Segment

Starting

Milepost

Ending

Milepost

Number

of Stops

Weather

Conditions Train Handling Issues Data Gathering Issues

13 421 379 0 Clear Shut down Loco. 8702 for

return trip.

14 379 356 0 Clear

15 356 350 1 Clear

16 350 337 0 Clear

17 334 325 0 Clear

18 325 321 1 Clear Stop Distance Test

19 321 276 0 Clear

20 276 238 5 Clear

21 238 224 0 Clear

22 224 218 0 Clear

23 218 203 2 Clear

24 203 178 4 Clear
A-6

Run: 5 Top of Rail Lubricant: x Yes No

Dates: 2/27/98 to 2/27/98 Trip Time: 17:24 Train No.: N25326 Tonnage: 12816 Brake Tests: MP 322–323

Test Zone

Segment

Starting

Milepost

Ending

Milepost

Number

of Stops

Weather

Conditions Train Handling Issues Data Gathering Issues

1 178 203 3 Clear

2 203 218 2 Clear Stopped for pusher train at

base of Duff Mt.

3 218 224 1 Clear

4 224 238 2 Clear

5 238 276 2 Clear

6 276 321 1 Clear

7 321 325 1 Clear Stop Distance Test

8 325 334 0 Clear

9 337 350 0 Clear

10 350 356 0 Clear

11 356 379 0 Clear

12 379 421 1 Clear

Dates: 2/28/98 to 2/28/98 Trip Time: 15:40 Train No.: N25326 Tonnage: 2390 Braking Tests: MP 324–323

Test Zone

Segment

Starting

Milepost

Ending

Milepost

Number

of Stops

Weather

Conditions Train Handling Issues Data Gathering Issues

13 421 379 2 Clear Shut down Loco. 8702 for

return trip.

14 379 356 0 Clear

15 356 350 1 Clear

16 350 337 0 Clear

17 334 325 0 Clear

18 325 321 1 Clear Stop Distance Test

19 321 276 2 Clear

20 276 238 1 Clear

21 238 224 1 Clear

22 224 218 0 Clear

23 218 203 1 Clear

24 203 178 1 Clear
A-7

Run: 6 Top of Rail Lubricant: x Yes No

Dates: 3/2/98 to 3/3/98 Trip Time: 23:34 Train No..: N25301 Tonnage: 12681 Brake Tests: MP 322–323

Test Zone

Segment

Starting

Milepost

Ending

Milepost

Number

of Stops

Weather

Conditions Train Handling Issues Data Gathering Issues

1 178 203 0 Light Rain

2 203 218 2 Rain Stopped for pusher train at

base of Duff Mt.

3 218 224 1 Light Snow

4 224 238 0 Light Snow

5 238 276 2 Clear

6 276 321 1 Clear

7 321 325 1 Light Snow Stop Distance Test

8 325 334 1 Clear

9 337 350 0 Clear

10 350 356 1 Clear

11 356 379 1 Clear

12 379 421 3 Clear

Dates: 3/3/98 to 3/4/98 Trip Time: 19:59 Train No.: N25301 Tonnage: 2390 Brake Tests: None

Test Zone

Segment

Starting

Milepost

Ending

Milepost

Number

of Stops

Weather

Conditions Train Handling Issues Data Gathering Issues

13 421 379 0 Clear Shut down Loco. 8702 for

return trip.

14 379 356 0 Clear

15 356 350 0 Clear

16 350 337 0 Clear

17 334 325 1 Clear

18 325 321 0 Clear No Stop Distance Test

19 321 276 1 Clear

20 276 238 5 Clear

21 238 224 1 Clear

22 224 218 0 Clear

23 218 203 2 Clear

24 203 178 0 Clear

B-1

APPENDIX B

BRAKING DISTANCE RESULTS AND THEORETICAL TREATMENTS
B-2

Theory and Method of Braking Distance Corrections

 Due to Grade Effects and Powered Braking

Braking Distance

Braking distance L (ft.) of a train is given by1:

L = 70*W*V2 (1)

FB

Where W is weight of train in tons

V is speed in MPH

FB is the total braking force in lb.

FB = F1+F2+FG (2)

Where F1 - braking force

F2 - train resistance

FG - grade resistance

Grade affects the braking distance significantly. Its effect can be calculated and correction on the

stopping distance can be made. Such corrections in stopping distances make it possible to

compare different brake tests.

Grade Resistance

Grade resistance = 20lb/ton/1%grade1

Grade resistance of a loaded train, FGL , with load W = 12,000 tons is:

FGL = 20 x 12000 x %grade, lbs.

= 240,000 x %grade, lbs. (3)

Grade resistance of empty train, FGE , with load = 3000 tons is:

FGE = 20 x 3000 x %grade, lbs.

= 60,000 x %grade, lbs. (4)

 

1

 William W. Hay. Railroad Engineering; Second Edition; John Wiley & Sons, New York 1982.
B-3

Correction for Grade Resistance

It can be assumed as a good first approximation that

F1 + F2 = Braking Force + Train Resistance = F (5)

is nearly the same for all full service brake applications or separately for all emergency brake

applications.

Stopping distance LG, for braking on grade, from Eq. (1) can then be written as

LG = 70*W*V2

 (6) F + FG

or

F = 70*W*V2

 _ FG (7) LG

W and V are known and FG can be calculated from Eqs. (3) and (4). Thus, the value of F can be

calculated. Once F is known, the corrected stopping distance for level track, L, can be

determined. Corrected stopping distance L for tangent track is then given by

L = 70*W*V2

 (8)

F

This approach was used for correcting the stopping distances for grade.

Track Grades During Braking

Brake tests were conducted in two locations, one north of Etowah, TN and the other was south of

Etowah. The mileposts from which braking started were 324, 323, and 352. Track charts

pertaining to these regions are included in this appendix. Since trains were traveling in both

northbound and southbound directions, the location, with respect to milepost, and the grades over

which braking was done varied between tests. These are listed in Table B-1.
B-4

Table B-1. Mileposts and Grade Distributions Estimated from Track Charts

Mile Post Northbound Southbound Length (ft) Grade (%)

600 -0.65

636 -0.11

600 +0.41

720 +0.41

324-323 o Reverse

grade sign

2760 +0.18

660 -0.45

322-323 o Reverse 2100 -0.61

grade sign 2040 -0.45

1284 -0.14

352-353 o Reverse

grade sign 3717 -0.08

3055 -0.14

352-351 o Reverse

grade sign 2216 0.65

As can be seen in Table B-1, the grade varied over the length of track where braking was done.

For calculation purposes, an average grade was calculated over the length of track required in

bringing the train to rest. This average grade was used in Eqs. (3) and (4) to determine the force

due to grade.

As a simple illustration of the manner in which the stopping distances can be corrected for grade

differences, consider brake tests #1 and 4, both of which were conducted on empty, unlubricated

trains. The stopping distance from test #4 was 1835 feet. This value is used to determine the

distribution of the grade over the test zone.

Length Grade

600’ -0.65%

636’ -0.11%

600’+ 0.0014%

Totals

1835 ft+ Proportional Avg

= -0.117%
B-5

The sign of the average grade is reversed due to the fact that the train is northbound in this

particular case, resulting in a value of + 0.117 used as the average grade for this calculation. For

the purpose of illustration, the following calculation is made for the aggregate results from tests

#1 and 4 since both tests were conducted with empty trains on the same grade.

For these cases, the average stopping distance was:

L = 1891+1835 = 1863 ft.

 2

The other parameters pertaining to these tests are:

V = 40 mph W = 2389 tons

FG = 20 x 2389 x 0.117 = 5590 lb.

Therefore,

F = 70*W*V2

 - FG = (70*2389*402)/1863 - 5590 = 143,622 - 5590 = 138,032 lb.

LB

And 

Corrected L = 70*W*V2 = 1938 ft.

 F

The corrected values of stopping distance for tests #1 and 4 are actually 1969 and 1908 feet,

respectively, using the values pertinent to each test. The values corresponding to the braking

distance tests are provided in the accompanying table.

Correction for Powered Braking

Sometimes, the brakes are applied while the locomotive is still in power mode, i.e., the

locomotive brought to rest while in notch positions other than “0”. In this study, this was the case

for Brake Test 7. In order to facilitate comparisons with “unpowered” brake distance tests, the

driving force must be accounted for. A correction for power application can be made in a manner

similar to that presented in the preceding section.

Eq. (1) will remain the same as before, but Eq. (2) can be rewritten as:

FB = F1 + F2 + FG + FP

where F1, F2, FG represent the same quantities presented earlier and a new term FP, representing

the average “power forward” force, is added. For the case being considered, the average force is

estimated to be half of the force that results when the control was set in notch 8. This is done for

the sake of ease due to the fact that a gradual “notching down” from notch 8 to an idle position

was performed (as evidenced in Figure B-1, marked “Chart 1”, which shows the time history of

the throttle position that resulted during powered braking). Thus, the corrected stopping distance

is given by Eq. (9), where the expression for F is now given by
B-6

F = 70*W*V2 (9)

LB

For SD 60 locomotives, the tractive effort in notch 8 at 30-40 mph is estimated as approximately

30,000 lbs. per locomotive. Thus for the empty train, the total tractive effort is 60,000 lbs. due to

the fact that only two locomotives are used to power the train.

Consider application of this method to the results pertaining to Brake Test 7. The value of F is

determined as follows:

V = 40 mph W = 2389 tons

FG = 20 x 2389 x 0.14 = 6689 lb.

Therefore,

F = 70*W*V2

 - FG = (70*2389*402)/2376 - 6,689 = 112613 – 6689 = 105924 lb.

LB

The actual braking force without power would be 60,000 lbs. higher than the value experienced.

Thus the calculated value of F1 + F2 = 105924 will be corrected to F = 165924 lbs. Using this, the

corrected braking distance becomes:

L = 70*2389*402 = 1613 ft.

165924

Error Margin

The brake application could not be precisely at the milepost listed. If the brakes were applied ± 4

seconds apart at 40 mph, this could result in a discrepancy of ± 235 feet. This alone can create a

spread of approximately 400 feet. There also could be some error in the locomotive distance

counter, particularly due to a variety of humidity conditions due to different wheel creeps

experienced.
Table B-2. Analysis of CSX Braking Tests

Test Speed Date Time of Dry/ Run Weather Cars Tonnage Temp. Wheel Slip Location Avg. Mile Type of Braking Distance Fo

# (MPH) Day Lube # (deg. F) (yes/no) (N/S of Etowah) Grade Post (Emer. or Full Ser.) (Feet) to G

1 40 2/17 8:00 PM Dry 1 cloudy Empty 2389 No N-Northbound 0.117 324-323 Fullservice 1891 5

dryrail

2 30 2/19 7:20 PM Dry 2 cloudy Loaded 12635 52 No N-Southbound -0.55 322-323 Fullservice 3251 -

dryrail

3 30 2/19 9:30 PM Dry 2 cloudy Loaded 12635 46 No S-Southbound -0.11 352-353 Fullservice 2303 -

dryrail

4 40 2/20 12:30 PM Dry 2 cloudy Empty 2389 No N-Northbound 0.117 324-323 Fullservice 1835 5

dryrail

5 30 2/22 12:20 PM Lube 3 cloudy Loaded 12668 45 No N-Southbound -0.57 322-323 Fullservice 2634 -1

damp

6 30 2/22 5:15 PM Lube 3 cloudy Loaded 12668 No S-Southbound -0.118 352-353 Fullservice 2047 -2

damp

7 40 2/23 3:45 AM Lube 3 cloudy Empty 2389 45 No S-Northbound 0.14 352-351 Fullservice 2376 6

rain

8 40 2/23 6:00 AM Lube 3 cloudy Empty 2389 45 No N-Northbound 0.117 324-323 Fullservice 1914 5

rain

9 30 2/25 1:00 AM Dry 4 Clear Loaded 12643 45 No N-Southbound -0.52 322-323 Emergency 1136 -1

dryrail

10 38 2/26 Dry 4 Clear Empty 2390 No S-Northbound 0.44 324-323 Emergency 971 2

dryrail

11 30 2/27 Lube 5 Loaded 12816 No N-Southbound -0.54 322-323 Emergency 1303 -112 39 2/28 1:00 PM Lube 5 Clear Empty 2390 60 No N-Northbound 0.38 324-323 Emergency 1201 

dryrail

13 29 3/3 3:00 AM Lube 6 cloudy Loaded 12681 45 No N-Southbound -0.51 322-323 Emergency 1095 -1

snow

B-7
B-8

Figure B-1. Time History of Parameters Recorded During Brake Test 7

(Run 3, MP 350 - MP 356) 

-250-225-200-175-150-125-100

-75-50-25

0

255075

100125150175200225250275300325350

1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 

TIME (SEC)

D.BAR (KIPS); TLPSI (PSIG)

Drawbar 

Trainline PSI

Speed

Throttle

POWERED 

BRAKING

Dynamic Brake

Location 
C-1

APPENDIX C

TRIBOMETER MEASUREMENTS
C-2

Tribometer Measurements

The following items are provided in this appendix:

- A record of all tribometer measurements made. Measurements are reported for both rails at

multiple stations. Other information provided includes train conditions, the weather

associated with each test case and additional comments pertaining to operating conditions

that could affect results.

- A graph, Figure C-1, illustrating the range of average tribometer measurements made over the

series of tests. The results presented in this graph illustrate the range of adhesion coefficients

that are found in typical operating conditions and the relative effect of the TOR lubricant.

Values presented on this graph represent the average of the tribometer readings made on both

rails at corresponding stations.
Friction Coefficient Measurements

Test Case 1

Run: 3

Date/Time: 02/22/1998

Time: 8-9 AM

TOR Lubrication: Yes

Train Condition: Loaded

Locations: Curve Site, MP 234.7

Conditions: Dry Rail, T=45

Comments: Test train proceeding from north; did not pass through wayside lubricator

Station

High Rail, 

Before Test 

Train 

Passage

High Rail, 

After Test 

Train 

Passage

Low Rail, 

Before Test 

Train 

Passage

Low Rail, 

After Test 

Train 

Passage

Xing 1 0.43 0.33 0.43 0.44

2 0.41 0.36 0.43 0.47

3 0.44 0.34 0.50 0.48

Crib 2 4 0.44 0.35 0.44

5 0.41 0.35 0.45 0.40

6 0.47 0.39 0.44 0.42

7 0.45 0.37 0.45 0.40

8 0.44 0.39 0.48 0.51

Crib 1 9 0.45 0.39 0.47 0.46

Average 0.44 0.36 0.46 0.45

Test Case 2

Run: 3

Date: 02/23/1998

Time: 11:30:AM - 1:00 PM

TOR Lubrication: No

Train Condition: Empty

Locations: Curve Site, MP 234.7

Conditions: Drizzle, T=45

Comments: Revenue service train proceeding from south; passed through wayside lubricator

Station High Rail, 

Sample 1

High Rail, 

Sample 2

Low Rail, 

Sample 1

Low Rail, 

Sample 2

Xing 1 0.39 0.21 0.55 0.38

2 0.44 0.22 0.50 0.35

3 0.52 0.19 0.49 0.35

Crib 2 4 0.57 0.21 0.49 0.37

5 0.20 0.49

6 0.58 0.22 0.49 0.39

7 0.64 0.22 0.43 0.39

8 0.63 0.23 0.46 0.41

Crib 1 9 0.68 0.22 0.43 0.38

Average 0.56 0.21 0.48 0.38

Test Case 3

Run: 4

Date: 02/24/1998

Time: 7:00 PM

TOR Lubrication: No

Train Condition: Loaded

Locations: Curve Site, MP 234.7

Conditions: Dry Rail, T~40

Comments: Test train proceeding from north; did not pass through wayside lubricator

Station

High Rail, 

Before Test 

Train 

Passage

High Rail, 

After Test 

Train 

Passage

Low Rail, 

Before Test 

Train 

Passage

Low Rail, 

After Test 

Train 

Passage

Xing 1 0.32 0.36 0.37

2 0.35 0.50 0.39 0.46

3 0.36 0.48 0.41 0.50

4 0.37 0.48 0.41 0.53

Crib 2 5 0.38 0.39 0.46

6 0.38 0.48 0.39 0.43

7 0.35 0.48 0.43 0.49

8 0.42 0.49 0.38 0.50

9 0.43 0.47 0.40 0.46

Crib 1 10 0.41 0.51 0.38 0.41

Average 0.38 0.47 0.40 0.47

C-3
Test Case 4

Run: 4

Date: 02/26/1998

Time: 8-8:30 AM

TOR Lubrication: No

Train Condition: Empty

Locations: Curve Site, MP 234.7

Conditions: Dry Rail, T=32, H=55%

Comments: Test train proceeding from south; passed through wayside lubricator

Station

High Rail, 

Before Test 

Train 

Passage

High Rail, 

After Test 

Train 

Passage

Low Rail, 

Before Test 

Train 

Passage

Low Rail, 

After Test 

Train 

Passage

Xing 1 0.37 0.28 0.34

2 0.35 0.25 0.44 0.32

3 0.38 0.27 0.46 0.29

4 0.39 0.25 0.45 0.32

Crib 2 5 0.26 0.39 0.32

6 0.39 0.27 0.48 0.30

7 0.44 0.27 0.45 0.32

8 0.39 0.26 0.43 0.36

9 0.41 0.28 0.46 0.31

10 0.41 0.25 0.39 0.31

Crib 1 11 0.27

Average 0.39 0.26 0.44 0.32

Test Case 5

Run: 5

Date: 02/27/1998

Time: 7:45-10:30 AM

TOR Lubrication: Yes

Train Condition: Loaded

Locations: Curve Site, MP 234.7

Conditions: Dry Rail, T=60, H=76%

Comments: Test train proceeding from north; did not pass through wayside lubricator

Station

High Rail, 

Before Test 

Train 

Passage

High Rail, 

After Test 

Train 

Passage

Low Rail, 

Before Test 

Train 

Passage

Low Rail, 

After Test 

Train 

Passage

Crib 2 1 0.36 0.31 0.33 0.36

2 0.39 0.34 0.32 0.41

3 0.42 0.35 0.32 0.38

4 0.43 0.34 0.30 0.35

Crib 1 5 0.30 0.34

Average 0.40 0.34 0.31 0.37

Test Case 6

Run: 5

Date: 02/27/1998

Time: 1:45 PM

TOR Lubrication: Yes

Train Condition: Loaded

Locations: MP 311.25

Conditions: Dry Rail, T~50

Comments: Test train on tangent track

Station

East Rail, 

Before Test 

Train 

Passage

East Rail, 

After Test 

Train 

Passage

West Rail, 

Before Test 

Train 

Passage

West Rail, 

After Test 

Train 

Passage

1 0.42 0.40 0.44 0.42

2 0.44 0.42 0.44 0.43

3 0.43 0.43

4 0.46 0.44

Average 0.44 0.41 0.44 0.43

C-4
Test Case 7

Run: 5

Date: 02/27/1998

Time: 9:30 PM

TOR Lubrication: Yes

Train Condition: Loaded

Locations: MP 351.67

Conditions: Dry Rail, T~40

Comments: Test train on tangent track

Station

East Rail, 

Before Test 

Train 

Passage

East Rail, 

After Test 

Train 

Passage

West Rail, 

Before Test 

Train 

Passage

West Rail, 

After Test 

Train 

Passage

1 0.62 0.28 0.41 0.29

2 0.58 0.28 0.38 0.28

3 0.51 0.46

4 0.54 0.50

5 0.47 0.57

 Average 0.54 0.28 0.46 0.29

Test Case 8

Run: 5

Date: 02/28/1998

Time: 9:15-10:30 AM

TOR Lubrication: Yes

Train Condition: Empty 

Locations: MP 348.67

Conditions: Dry Rail, T=68, H=52%

Comments: Test train on tangent track; surveys conducted to determine effect of time on adhesion coefficient

Station

West Rail, 

Before Test 

Train 

Passage

West Rail, 

After Test 

Train 

Passage

West Rail, 

15 Minutes 

After Test 

Train 

Passage

West Rail, 

30 Minutes 

After Test 

Train 

Passage

East Rail, 

Before Test 

Train 

Passage

East Rail, 

After Test 

Train 

Passage

East Rail, 

15 Minutes 

After Test 

Train 

Passage

East Rail, 

30 Minutes 

After Test 

Train 

Passage

1 0.66 0.34 0.30 0.64 0.29 0.31 0.31

2 0.67 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.64 0.31 0.33 0.32

3 0.62 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.59 0.30 0.30 0.31

4 0.32 0.33 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.32

Average 0.65 0.32 0.33 0.32 0.62 0.30 0.32 0.32

Test Case 9

Run: 5

Date: 02/28/1998

Time: 5:00 PM

TOR Lubrication: Yes

Train Condition: Empty

Locations: Curve Site, MP 234.7

Conditions: Dry Rail, T=59, H=36%

Comments: Test train proceeding from south; passed through wayside lubricator

no time to measure on low rail; heavy lube on rail after test train pass

Station

High Rail, 

Before Test 

Train 

Passage

High Rail, 

After Test 

Train 

Passage

Low Rail, 

Before Test 

Train 

Passage

Low Rail, 

After Test 

Train 

Passage

Xing 1 0.38 0.29

2 0.38 0.28

3 0.41 0.27

4 0.43 0.27

5 0.40 0.28

Crib 2 6 0.40 0.27

7 0.40 0.26

8 0.43 0.28

9 0.39 0.29

Crib 1 10 0.38 0.25

11 0.36 0.27

12 0.37 0.27

13 0.35 0.32

Joint 14 0.36 0.29

Average 0.39 0.28

C-5
Test Case 10

Run: 6

Date: 03/02/1998

Time: 6:00 PM

TOR Lubrication: Yes

Train Condition: Loaded

Locations: Curve Site, MP 234.7

Conditions: Snow Flurries, T=32, H=75%

Comments: Test train proceeding from north; did not pass through wayside lubricator

no time to measure on low rail after test train passage

Station

High Rail, 

Before Test 

Train 

Passage

High Rail, 

After Test 

Train 

Passage

Low Rail, 

Before Test 

Train 

Passage

Low Rail, 

After Test 

Train 

Passage

Xing 1 0.38 0.41 0.45

2 0.42 0.40 0.46

3 0.42 0.41 0.48

4 0.43 0.39 0.51

Crib 2 5 0.46 0.39 0.47

6 0.44 0.39 0.51

7 0.51 0.41 0.54

8 0.46 0.41 0.52

Crib 1 9 0.47 0.50

10 0.48 0.52

11 0.51 0.55

12 0.39 0.48

Joint 13 0.43 0.47

Average 0.45 0.40 0.50

Test Case 11

Run: 6

Date: 03/03/1998

Time: 12:20 AM

TOR Lubrication: Yes

Train Condition: Loaded

Locations: Fagin Xing, MP 311.25

Conditions: Slight Condensation, T=38, H=77%

Comments: Test train on tangent track

Station

East Rail, 

Before Test 

Train 

Passage

East Rail, 

After Test 

Train 

Passage

West Rail, 

Before Test 

Train 

Passage

West Rail, 

After Test 

Train 

Passage

1 0.53 0.31 0.58 0.32

2 0.56 0.32 0.64 0.30

3 0.58 0.33 0.59 0.33

4 0.60 0.32 0.62 0.31

5 0.56 0.32 0.62 0.31

Average 0.57 0.32 0.61 0.31

Test Case 12

Run: 6

Date: 03/03/1998

Time: 11:00 PM

TOR Lubrication: Yes

Train Condition: Empty

Locations: MP 351.67

Conditions: Dry Rail, T=37, H=65%

Comments: Test train on tangent track

Station

East Rail, 

Before Test 

Train 

Passage

East Rail, 

After Test 

Train 

Passage

West Rail, 

Before Test 

Train 

Passage

West Rail, 

After Test 

Train 

Passage

1 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.40

2 0.38 0.34 0.38 0.41

3 0.35 0.40 0.38 0.41

4 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.40

5 0.38 0.39 0.36 0.38

Average 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.40

C-6
Test Case 13

Run: 6

Date: 03/04/1998

Time: 11:35 AM

TOR Lubrication: Yes

Train Condition: Empty

Locations: Curve Site, MP 234.7

Conditions: Dry Rail, T=54, H=55%

Comments: Test train proceeding from south; passed through wayside lubricator;

no excessive wayside lube

Station

High Rail, 

Before Test 

Train 

Passage

High Rail, 

After Test 

Train 

Passage

Low Rail, 

Before Test 

Train 

Passage

Low Rail, 

After Test 

Train 

Passage

Xing 1 0.42 0.27

2 0.45 0.28 0.51

3 0.53 0.29 0.51 0.35

4 0.52 0.53 0.36

Crib 2 5 0.43 0.27 0.52 0.35

6 0.58 0.29 0.47 0.37

7 0.58 0.27 0.47 0.35

Crib 1 8 0.55 0.42 0.34

Average 0.51 0.28 0.49 0.35

C-7
C-8

Figure C-1. Average Tribometer Readings, Before and After Test Train Passa

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.70

0 10 20 30 40 50 

Reading

Average Measured Friction Coefficient Before 

After T
D-1

APPENDIX D

FUEL CONSUMPTION MEASUREMENTS
Segment 1 Run 2, Unlubricated Run 4, Unlubricated Run 3, Lubricated Run 5, Lubricated 

25 Miles L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total 

Stop 0 70 85 97 252 7 5 9 21 69 70 94 233 3 2 6 11 Stop 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 6 Stop 2 0 75 81 100 256 0 53 63 71 187 Stop 3 0 0 0 19 21 24 64 Stop 4 0 0 0 0 Fuel in segment 70 85 97 252 82 86 109 277 69 70 94 233 77 88 103 268 

Segment 2 Run 2, Unlubricated Run 4, Unlubricated Run 3, Lubricated Run 5, Lubricated 15 Miles L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total 

Stop 0 95 116 130 341 65 61 86 212 58 73 79 210 66 58 88 212 Stop 1 63 76 82 221 80 99 109 288 79 95 106 280 23 27 31 81 Stop 2 0 0 0 66 75 86 227 Stop 3 0 0 0 0 Stop 4 0 0 0 0 Fuel in segment 158 192 212 562 145 160 195 500 137 168 185 490 155 160 205 520 

Segment 3 Run 2, Unlubricated Run 4, Unlubricated Run 3, Lubricated Run 5, Lubricated  6 Miles L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total 

Stop 0 5 5 7 17 1 2 2 5 2 3 4 9 6 8 11 25 Stop 1 0 5 8 9 22 0 0 Stop 2 0 0 0 0 Stop 3 0 0 0 0 Stop 4 0 0 0 0 Fuel in segment 5 5 7 17 6 10 11 27 2 3 4 9 6 8 11 25 

Segment 4 Run 2, Unlubricated Run 4, Unlubricated Run 3, Lubricated Run 5, Lubricated  14 Miles L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total 

Stop 0 17 22 25 64 7 6 5 18 19 22 28 69 8 8 10 26 Stop 1 0 2 5 1 8 0 2 3 3 8 Stop 2 0 11 8 17 36 0 5 5 6 16 Stop 3 0 0 0 0 Stop 4 0 0 0 0 Fuel in segment 17 22 25 64 20 19 23 62 19 22 28 69 15 16 19 50 

Fuel Consumption Results, Runs with Loaded Test Train

Fuel Consumption for CSXT 8328 (L1), CSXT 8702 (L2) and CSXT 8709 (L3) Presented in Gallons

D-2
Fuel Consumption Results, Runs with Loaded Test Train

Fuel Consumption for CSXT 8328 (L1), CSXT 8702 (L2) and CSXT 8709 (L3) Presented in Gallons

Segment 5 Run 2, Unlubricated Run 4, Unlubricated Run 3, Lubricated Run 5, Lubricated 

 38 Miles L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total 

Stop 0 27 33 35 95 167 180 225 572 139 161 187 487 44 52 61 157 Stop 1 112 139 149 400 5 5 6 16 18 23 26 67 122 129 165 416 Stop 2 16 21 24 61 0 0 4 4 6 14 Stop 3 0 0 0 0 Stop 4 0 0 0 0 Fuel in segment 155 193 208 556 172 185 231 588 157 184 213 554 170 185 232 587 

Segment 6 Run 2, Unlubricated Run 4, Unlubricated Run 3, Lubricated Run 5, Lubricated  45 Miles L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total 

Stop 0 23 27 31 81 187 219 258 664 182 220 245 647 101 106 133 340 Stop 1 73 75 101 249 0 0 104 125 134 363 Stop 2 99 118 134 351 0 0 0 Stop 3 0 0 0 0 Stop 4 0 0 0 0 Fuel in segment 195 220 266 681 187 219 258 664 182 220 245 647 205 231 267 703 

Segment 7 Run 2, Unlubricated Run 4, Unlubricated Run 3, Lubricated Run 5, Lubricated  4 Miles L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total 

Stop 0 10 12 13 35 12 9 17 38 12 13 15 40 13 12 23 48 Stop 1 0 0 0 0 Stop 2 0 0 0 0 Stop 3 0 0 0 0 Stop 4 0 0 0 0 Fuel in segment 10 12 13 35 12 9 17 38 12 13 15 40 13 12 23 48 

Segment 8 Run 2, Unlubricated Run 4, Unlubricated Run 3, Lubricated Run 5, Lubricated  9 Miles L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total 

Stop 0 24 30 34 88 1 2 3 6 2 3 5 10 24 30 32 86 Stop 1 0 29 36 40 105 29 32 41 102 0 Stop 2 0 0 0 0 Stop 3 0 0 0 0 Stop 4 0 0 0 0 Fuel in segment 24 30 34 88 30 38 43 111 31 35 46 112 24 30 32 86 

D-3
Fuel Consumption Results, Runs with Loaded Test Train

Fuel Consumption for CSXT 8328 (L1), CSXT 8702 (L2) and CSXT 8709 (L3) Presented in Gallons

Segment 9 Run 2, Unlubricated Run 4, Unlubricated Run 3, Lubricated Run 5, Lubricated 

 13 Miles L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total 

Stop 0 39 42 54 135 43 46 54 143 36 40 49 125 36 39 49 124 Stop 1 0 0 0 0 Stop 2 0 0 0 0 Stop 3 0 0 0 0 Stop 4 0 0 0 0 Fuel in segment 39 42 54 135 43 46 54 143 36 40 49 125 36 39 49 124 

Segment 10 Run 2, Unlubricated Run 4, Unlubricated Run 3, Lubricated Run 5, Lubricated  6 Miles L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total 

Stop 0 40 49 53 142 27 34 34 95 38 45 52 135 28 36 38 102 Stop 1 0 0 0 0 Stop 2 0 0 0 0 Stop 3 0 0 0 0 Stop 4 0 0 0 0 Fuel in segment 40 49 53 142 27 34 34 95 38 45 52 135 28 36 38 102 

Segment 11 Run 2, Unlubricated Run 4, Unlubricated Run 3, Lubricated Run 5, Lubricated  23 Miles L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total 

Stop 0 65 83 89 237 43 46 49 138 64 73 86 223 67 81 89 237 Stop 1 0 34 41 40 115 0 0 Stop 2 0 0 0 0 Stop 3 0 0 0 0 Stop 4 0 0 0 0 Fuel in segment 65 83 89 237 77 87 89 253 64 73 86 223 67 81 89 237 

Segment 12 Run 2, Unlubricated Run 4, Unlubricated Run 3, Lubricated Run 5, Lubricated  42 Miles L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total 

Stop 0 98 105 132 335 158 167 191 516 167 176 229 572 19 26 29 74 Stop 1 53 56 74 183 1 3 2 6 2 1 1 4 127 136 174 437 Stop 2 8 10 11 29 8 9 9 26 0 0 Stop 3 0 0 0 0 Stop 4 0 0 0 0 Fuel in segment 159 171 217 547 167 179 202 548 169 177 230 576 146 162 203 511 

Total Fuel Used Run 2 3316 Run 4 3306 Run 3 3213 Run 5 3261 R

D-4
Segment 13 Run 2, Unlubricated Run 4, Unlubricated Run 3, Lubricated Run 5, Lubricated 

42 Miles L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 

Stop 0 6 1 7 14 117 5 160 282 49 3 67 119 3 4 4 11 1Stop 1 91 4 122 217 0 43 4 59 106 110 5 82 197 Stop 2 35 1 50 86 0 32 1 44 77 31 2 43 76 Stop 3 0 0 0 0 Stop 4 0 0 0 0 Fuel in segment 132 6 179 317 117 5 160 282 124 8 170 302 144 11 129 284 1

Segment 14 Run 2, Unlubricated Run 4, Unlubricated Run 3, Lubricated Run 5, Lubricated 23 Miles L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 

Stop 0 18 2 18 88 73 3 97 173 30 1 41 72 71 3 94 168 Stop 1 46 2 61 109 0 47 2 63 112 0 Stop 2 0 0 0 0 Stop 3 0 0 0 0 Stop 4 0 0 0 0 Fuel in segment 84 4 109 197 73 3 97 173 77 3 104 184 71 3 94 168 

Segment 15 Run 2, Unlubricated Run 4, Unlubricated Run 3, Lubricated Run 5, Lubricated  6 Miles L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 

Stop 0 2 0 2 4 0 16 1 21 38 3 0 3 6 Stop 1 9 0 13 22 0 0 10 1 12 23 Stop 2 0 0 0 0 Stop 3 0 0 0 0 Stop 4 0 0 0 0 Fuel in segment 11 0 15 26 0 0 0 26 16 1 21 38 13 1 15 29 

Segment 16 Run 2, Unlubricated Run 4, Unlubricated Run 3, Lubricated Run 5, Lubricated 

 13 Miles L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 Stop 0 35 3 47 85 0 33 2 44 79 28 2 40 70 Stop 1 0 0 0 0 Stop 2 0 0 0 0 Stop 3 0 0 0 0 Stop 4 0 0 0 0 Fuel in segment 35 3 47 85 0 0 0 96 33 2 44 79 28 2 40 70 

Fuel Consumption Results, Runs with Empty Test Train

Fuel Consumption for CSXT 8328 (L1), CSXT 8702 (L2) and CSXT 8709 (L3) Presented in Gallons

D-5
Fuel Consumption Results, Runs with Empty Test Train

Fuel Consumption for CSXT 8328 (L1), CSXT 8702 (L2) and CSXT 8709 (L3) Presented in Gallons

Segment 17 Run 2, Unlubricated Run 4, Unlubricated Run 3, Lubricated Run 5, Lubricated 

 9 Miles L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 

Stop 0 38 3 53 94 38 3 53 94 34 1 47 82 36 1 50 87 Stop 1 0 0 0 0 Stop 2 0 0 0 0 Stop 3 0 0 0 0 Stop 4 0 0 0 0 Fuel in segment 38 3 53 94 38 3 53 94 34 1 47 82 36 1 50 87 

Segment 18 Run 2, Unlubricated Run 4, Unlubricated Run 3, Lubricated Run 5, Lubricated  4 Miles L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 

Stop 0 22 0 28 50 22 1 30 53 21 1 29 51 15 3 20 38 Stop 1 0 0 0 0 Stop 2 0 0 0 0 Stop 3 0 0 0 0 Stop 4 0 0 0 0 Fuel in segment 22 0 28 50 22 1 30 53 21 1 29 51 15 3 20 38 

Segment 19 Run 2, Unlubricated Run 4, Unlubricated Run 3, Lubricated Run 5, Lubricated  45 Miles L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 

Stop 0 16 1 21 38 107 7 144 258 92 8 121 221 86 4 111 201 Stop 1 88 6 118 212 0 0 2 0 1 3 Stop 2 20 1 26 47 0 0 19 2 26 47 Stop 3 0 0 0 0 Stop 4 0 0 0 0 Fuel in segment 124 8 165 297 107 7 144 258 92 8 121 221 107 6 138 251 1

Segment 20 Run 2, Unlubricated Run 4, Unlubricated Run 3, Lubricated Run 5, Lubricated  38 Miles L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 

Stop 0 105 7 138 250 2 1 3 6 96 7 128 231 2 0 2 4 Stop 1 0 37 2 51 90 0 100 5 134 239 Stop 2 0 18 3 22 43 0 0 Stop 3 0 24 2 34 60 0 0 Stop 4 0 6 1 8 15 0 0 Fuel in 15 1 21 37segment 105 7 138 250 102 10 139 251 96 7 128 231 102 5 136 243 

D-6
Fuel Consumption Results, Runs with Empty Test Train

Fuel Consumption for CSXT 8328 (L1), CSXT 8702 (L2) and CSXT 8709 (L3) Presented in Gallons

Segment 21 Run 2, Unlubricated Run 4, Unlubricated Run 3, Lubricated Run 5, Lubricated 

 14 Miles L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 

Stop 0 55 3 72 130 55 2 73 130 32 1 44 77 49 1 63 113 Stop 1 0 0 8 1 11 20 5 0 7 12 Stop 2 0 0 13 1 18 32 0 Stop 3 0 0 0 0 Stop 4 0 0 0 0 Fuel in segment 55 3 72 130 55 2 73 130 53 3 73 129 54 1 70 125 

Segment 22 Run 2, Unlubricated Run 4, Unlubricated Run 3, Lubricated Run 5, Lubricated  6 Miles L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 

Stop 0 39 1 51 91 41 2 48 91 37 2 49 88 41 2 55 98 Stop 1 0 0 0 0 Stop 2 0 0 0 0 Stop 3 0 0 0 0 Stop 4 0 0 0 0 Fuel in segment 39 1 51 91 41 2 48 91 37 2 49 88 41 2 55 98 

Segment 23 Run 2, Unlubricated Run 4, Unlubricated Run 3, Lubricated Run 5, Lubricated  15 Miles L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 

Stop 0 0 1 0 1 3 1 13 17 11 2 16 29 5 1 7 13 Stop 1 8 2 9 19 4 2 4 10 4 1 4 9 3 1 4 8 Stop 2 5 3 4 12 1 0 1 2 0 0 Stop 3 0 0 0 0 Stop 4 0 0 0 0 Fuel in segment 13 6 13 32 8 3 18 29 15 3 20 38 8 2 11 21 

Segment 24 Run 2, Unlubricated Run 4, Unlubricated Run 3, Lubricated Run 5, Lubricated  25 Miles L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 L2 L3 Total L1 

Stop 0 7 1 8 16 7 1 8 16 7 1 9 17 6 1 5 12 Stop 1 65 4 89 158 17 2 22 41 30 3 38 71 55 2 82 139 Stop 2 0 9 0 12 21 3 1 4 8 0 Stop 3 0 9 1 11 21 34 2 46 82 0 Stop 4 0 31 0 43 74 0 0 Fuel in segment 72 5 97 174 73 4 96 173 74 7 97 178 61 3 87 151 

Total Fuel Used Run 2 1743 Run 4 1656 Run 3 1621 Run 5 1565 Run 

D-7
Run 2, Unlubricated Run 4, Unlubricated Run 3, Lubricated Run 5, Lubricated 

Segment MP Miles

Fuel 

Used 

(gal)

Avg. 

Speed 

(mph)

No. of 

Stops

Fuel 

Used 

(gal)

Avg. 

Speed 

(mph)

No. of 

Stops

Fuel 

Used 

(gal)

Avg. 

Speed 

(mph)

No. of 

Stops

Fuel 

Used 

(gal)

Avg. 

Speed 

(mph)

No. of 

Stops

1 178-203 25 252 27.1 0 277 19.4 2 233 24.1 0 268 18.2 3 2 203-218 15 562 15.6 1 500 18.3 1 490 18.7 1 520 14 2 3 218-224 6 18 20 0 27 17.3 1 9 22.7 0 25 17 0 4 224-238 14 64 29.4 0 62 22.9 2 69 30.3 0 50 19 2 5 238-276 38 556 21.1 2 588 23.5 1 554 24 1 587 24 2 6 276-321 45 681 22.1 2 664 29.5 0 647 28.8 0 703 25 1 7 321-325 4 35 19.8 0 38 16.2 0 40 48 14 1 8 325-334 9 88 22.8 0 111 18.3 1 112 17.2 1 86 22.5 1 9 337-350 13 135 30.4 0 143 31 0 125 30.7 0 124 30.5 0 

10 350-356 6 142 21.4 0 95 34.3 0 135 16.2 1 102 32 0 11 356-379 23 237 34.1 0 253 27.9 1 223 23.3 0 237 33 0 12 379-421 42 547 24.6 2 548 25.2 2 576 24.4 1 511 25 1 

Test Segments Determined to be Comparable Highlighted with Frame

Identification of Comparable Segments from Tests Conducted with Loaded Train

D-8
RunSegment 

No.

Fuel 

Used 

(gal)

% Savings Avg. % Savings 

for Segment

RunSegment 

No.

Fuel 

Used 

(gal)

% Savings Avg. % Savings 

for Segment

2-1 252 4-5 588

19.05 19.05 5.78

6-1 204 3-5 554

2.80

2-5 556

4-2 500 -0.18

2.00 6-5 557

3-2 490

4.56

2-2 562 4-8 111

7.12 1.80 1.80

6-2 522 6-8 109

2-3 17 4-9 143 139

47.06 2-9 135

3-3 9 7.91 7.91

32.79

4-3 27 3-9 125

18.52 5-9 124 128

6-3 22 6-9 135

2-4 64 2-12 547 548

-7.81 4-12 548

3-4 69 6.39 6.39

5.77

4-4 62 5-12 511 513

19.35 6-12 514

5-4 50

Average

For All 10.13

Segments

Fuel Savings for Comparable Segments from Tests Conducted with Loaded Train

D-9
Run 2, Unlubricated Run 4, Unlubricated Run 3, Lubricated Run 5, Lubricated 

Segment MP Miles

Fuel 

Used 

(gal)

Avg. 

Speed 

(mph)

No. of 

Stops

Fuel 

Used 

(gal)

Avg. 

Speed 

(mph)

No. of 

Stops

Fuel 

Used 

(gal)

Avg. 

Speed 

(mph)

No. of 

Stops

Fuel 

Used 

(gal)

Avg. 

Speed 

(mph)

No. o

Stops

13 421-379 42 317 34.3 2 282 35 0 302 25.4 2 284 33 2 14 379-356 23 197 36.5 1 173 44.9 0 184 40.9 1 168 44 0 15 356-350 6 26 42 0 25.4 1 38 26.4 0 29 29 1 16 350-337 13 85 42 0 40.4 0 79 44.9 0 70 40 0 17 334-325 9 94 23.9 0 94 24.1 0 82 31.7 0 87 24 018 325-321 4 50 20.5 0 53 16.4 0 51 19.1 0 38 14 119 321-276 45 297 30.9 2 258 33.8 0 221 29.4 0 251 27 2 20 276-238 38 250 33.3 0 251 24.8 5 231 31.4 0 243 31 1 21 238-224 14 130 30.3 0 130 30.8 0 129 20.4 2 125 19 1 22 224-218 6 91 24.2 0 91 25.2 0 88 23 0 98 20 0 23 218-203 15 32 21.7 2 29 19.1 2 38 19.7 1 21 22 1 24 203-178 25 174 23.8 1 173 17.6 4 178 20.6 3 151 29 1 

Test Segments Determined to be Comparable Highlighted with Frame

Identification of Comparable Segments from Tests Conducted with Empty Train

D-10
RunSegment 

No.

Fuel 

Used 

(gal)

% Savings Avg. % Savings 

for Segment

RunSegment 

No.

Fuel 

Used 

(gal)

% Savings Avg. % Savings 

for Segment

2-13 317 2-20 250

10.41 10.41 7.60 7.60

5-13 284 3-20 231

4-14 173 4-22 91

2.89 2.89 3.30 3.30

5-14 168 3-22 88

2-16 85

17.65 17.65 4-23 29

5-16 70 -24.14 -24.14

6-23 36

4-17 94

7.45 7.45 2-24 174

5-17 87 8.05 8.05

6-24 160

2-19 297

15.49 Average

5-19 251 For All 5.35

14.91 Segments

4-19 258

14.34

3-19 221

Fuel Savings for Comparable Segments from Tests Conducted with Empty Train

D-11

E-1

APPENDIX E

TRIP MONITOR READINGS
Test Run 2 Date: 2/19/98 Test Run 2 Date: 2/19/98 Test Run 2 

Unlubricated Loaded Train Unlubricated Loaded Train Unlubricated Empty TrainLocomotive: 8709 Locomotive: 8702 Locomotive: 8709

Throttle Mileage Hours HP-hrs kW-hrs Throttle Mileage Hours HP-hrs kW-hrs Throttle Mileage 

(x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs 

8 0.676 0.03 114.4 80.13 8 0.676 0.03 101.6 71.17 8 0.659 7 0.135 0.006 19.48 13.63 7 0.135 0.006 17.56 12.29 7 0.178 6 0.113 0.005 12.96 9.075 6 0.113 0.005 12.23 8.564 6 0.14 5 0.116 0.006 10.88 7.618 5 0.116 0.006 10.5 7.35 5 0.174 4 0.102 0.009 10.89 7.624 4 0.102 0.009 10.68 7.477 4 0.198 3 0.095 0.008 6.821 4.775 3 0.095 0.008 6.368 4.457 3 0.153 2 0.108 0.012 4.695 3.286 2 0.108 0.011 4.255 2.978 2 0.129 1 0.075 0.011 1.564 1.095 1 0.075 0.01 1.441 1.009 1 0.085 

Idle 0.093 0.083 0 0 Idle 0.093 0.082 0 0 Idle 0.111 

Dyn.Brake 0.871 0.042 0.401 0.28 Dyn.Brake 0.871 0.042 0.451 0.315 Dyn.Brake 0.377 

Totals 2.384 0.212 182.091 127.513 Totals 2.384 0.209 165.085 115.61 Totals 2.204 

Test Run 3 Date: 2/22/98 Test Run 3 Date: 2/22/98 Test Run 3 Lubricated Loaded Train Lubricated Loaded Train Lubricated Empty Train*Locomotive: 8709 Locomotive: 8702 Locomotive: 8709

Throttle Mileage Hours HP-hrs kW-hrs Throttle Mileage Hours HP-hrs kW-hrs Throttle Mileage 

(x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs 

8 0.763 0.033 124.7 87.32 8 0.763 0.033 107.1 74.98 8 0.587 7 0.106 0.004 13.57 9.503 7 0.106 0.004 13.05 9.14 7 0.145 6 0.099 0.004 9.938 6.956 6 0.099 0.004 9.527 6.669 6 0.125 5 0.076 0.004 6.764 4.738 5 0.076 0.004 6.605 4.623 5 0.134 4 0.074 0.003 4.704 3.293 4 0.074 0.003 4.572 3.2 4 0.146 3 0.072 0.004 3.691 2.584 3 0.072 0.004 3.74 2.617 3 0.173 2 0.054 0.005 1.89 1.322 2 0.054 0.005 1.843 1.29 2 0.166 1 0.073 0.007 1.104 0.772 1 0.073 0.007 1.1 0.77 1 0.026 

Idle 0.082 0.047 0 0 Idle 0.082 0.046 0 0 Idle 0.231 

Dyn.Brake 0.796 0.04 0.597 0.418 Dyn.Brake 0.796 0.041 0.693 0.485 Dyn.Brake 0.433 

Totals 2.195 0.151 166.958 116.906 Totals 2.195 0.151 148.23 103.774 Totals 2.166 

Trip Monitor Readings Made on Locomotives 8709 and 8702 

E-2
Trip Monitor Readings Made on Locomotives 8709 and 8702 

Test Run 4 Date: 2/24/98 Test Run 4 Date: 2/24/98 Test Run 4 Unlubricated Loaded Train Unlubricated Loaded Train Unlubricated Empty Train*Locomotive: 8709 Locomotive: 8702 Locomotive: 8709

Throttle Mileage Hours HP-hrs kW-hrs Throttle Mileage Hours HP-hrs kW-hrs Throttle Mileage 

(x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs 

8 0.86 0.037 141 98.75 8 0.86 0.037 116.4 81.52 8 0.58 7 0.076 0.003 10.03 7.025 7 0.076 0.003 7.44 5.207 7 0.126 6 0.083 0.003 8.063 5.644 6 0.083 0.003 7.434 5.203 6 0.17 5 0.054 0.002 4.406 3.084 5 0.054 0.002 4.133 2.893 5 0.172 4 0.078 0.004 4.968 3.478 4 0.078 0.003 4.604 3.222 4 0.199 3 0.082 0.005 4.448 3.114 3 0.082 0.005 4.356 3.049 3 0.185 2 0.085 0.006 2.445 1.711 2 0.085 0.006 2.354 1.648 2 0.231 1 0.054 0.006 0.897 0.628 1 0.054 0.005 0.995 0.627 1 0.118 

Idle 0.085 0.041 0 0 Idle 0.085 0.041 0 0 Idle 0.131 

Dyn.Brake 0.734 0.037 0.625 0.437 Dyn.Brake 0.734 0.037 0.704 0.493 Dyn.Brake 0.047 

Totals 2.191 0.144 176.882 123.871 Totals 2.191 0.142 148.42 103.862 Totals 1.959 

Test Run 5 Date: 2/27/98 Test Run 5 Date: 2/27/98Lubricated Loaded Train Lubricated Loaded TrainLocomotive: 8709 Locomotive: 8702

* Empty data for trip 5 was 

Throttle Mileage Hours HP-hrs kW-hrs Throttle Mileage Hours HP-hrs kW-hrs

(x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs

8 0.755 0.034 126.9 88.86 8 0.755 0.034 106 74.247 0.103 0.004 13.78 9.652 7 0.103 0.004 12.3 8.6116 0.094 0.004 10.58 7.41 6 0.094 0.004 9.666 6.7655 0.085 0.004 7.261 5.083 5 0.085 0.004 6.908 4.8354 0.082 0.004 5.946 4.162 4 0.082 0.004 5.687 3.9813 0.079 0.004 4.188 2.932 3 0.079 0.005 3.968 2.7782 0.063 0.006 2.239 1.569 2 0.063 0.006 2.219 1.5531 0.069 0.009 1.207 0.845 1 0.069 0.009 1.189 0.832

Idle 0.07 0.09 0 0 Idle 0.07 0.09 0 0

Dyn.Brake 0.883 0.046 0.687 0.481 Dyn.Brake 0.883 0.046 0.744 0.52

Totals 2.283 0.205 172.788 120.994 Totals 2.283 0.206 148.681 104.115

E-3
Trip Monitor Readings Made on Locomotives 8709 and 8702 

Test Run 6 Date: 3/2/98 Test Run 6 Date: 3/2/98 Test Run 6 Lubricated Loaded Train Lubricated Loaded Train Lubricated Empty Train*Locomotive: 8709 Locomotive: 8702 Locomotive: 8709

Throttle Mileage Hours HP-hrs kW-hrs Throttle Mileage Hours HP-hrs kW-hrs Throttle Mileage 

(x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs (x100)hrs 

8 0.644 0.029 109.6 76.76 8 0.644 0.029 95.65 66.95 8 0.487 7 0.092 0.004 13.28 9.3 7 0.092 0.004 11.71 8.203 7 0.129 6 0.097 0.005 11.78 8.25 6 0.097 0.005 11.26 7.885 6 0.159 5 0.089 0.005 9.359 6.551 5 0.089 0.005 9.047 6.333 5 0.216 4 0.084 0.006 7.162 5.013 4 0.084 0.006 7.011 4.907 4 0.254 3 0.094 0.008 6.832 4.782 3 0.094 0.008 6.703 4.691 3 0.2 2 0.092 0.006 2.641 1.848 2 0.092 0.006 2.559 1.791 2 0.182 1 0.05 0.005 0.821 0.574 1 0.05 0.005 0.801 0.561 1 0.156 

Idle 0.13 0.134 0 0 Idle 0.13 0.133 0 0 Idle 0.087 

Dyn.Brake 0.812 0.044 0.732 0.512 Dyn.Brake 0.812 0.046 0.793 0.555 Dyn.Brake 0.358 

Totals 2.184 0.246 162.207 113.59 Totals 2.184 0.247 145.534 101.876 Totals 2.228 

*No readings available from CSXT 8702 on "empty Runs"; CSXT 8702 taken off-line during return trips 

E-4
F-1

APPENDIX F

MECHANICAL ENERGY RESULTS
Segment No. Run 2 Run 4 Average Mechanical 

Energy

1 938.85 931.35 935.10

2 5520.78 4891.71 5206.25

3 -1343.64 -1638.51 -1491.07

4 -948.89 -1240.42 -1094.66

5 3368.55 2367.04 2867.80

6 4835.91 4480.30 4658.11

7 51.73 -179.30 -63.78

8 -189.40 -530.22 -359.81

9 969.26 1099.95 1034.60

10 1456.56 971.82 1214.19

11 866.03 1007.53 936.78

12 2619.92 2768.41 2694.17

Total, 

Loaded Train 18145.66 14929.68 16537.67

Segment No. Run 2 Run 4 Average Mechanical 

Energy

13 2653.86 2232.86 2443.36

14 1760.15 1594.98 1677.56

15 141.37 114.11 127.74

16 714.03 653.84 683.94

17 804.54 797.70 801.12

18 440.90 455.54 448.22

19 2174.06 2032.91 2103.49

20 2006.03 1703.70 1854.87

21 1099.52 1135.14 1117.33

22 739.05 763.59 751.32

23 -208.62 -272.38 -240.50

24 1331.49 1137.76 1234.62

Total, 

Empty Train 13656.38 12349.75 13003.06

Total, 

Round Trip 31802.04 27279.43 29540.74

Calculated Mechanical Energy (kW-Hrs), Unlubricated Runs

F-2
Segment No. Run 3 Run 5 Run 6 Average Mechanical 

Energy

1 -393.95 439.09 978.25 341.13

2 4944.62 4939.62 5133.06 5005.77

3 -1250.55 -1552.60 -1442.33 -1415.16

4 -1027.11 -994.77 -1001.36 -1007.75

5 3089.02 2620.27 3060.13 2923.14

6 4376.83 4482.17 4349.13 4402.71

7 ? -6.99 -137.49 -72.24

8 -773.78 -179.49 -479.39 -477.55

9 857.17 837.36 1031.80 908.78

10 1266.74 1017.41 976.00 1086.72

11 207.14 643.33 1065.75 638.74

12 2904.61 1973.27 2907.52 2595.14

Total, 

Loaded Train 14200.74 14218.66 16441.07 14929.41

Segment No. Run 3 Run 5 Run 6 Average Mechanical 

Energy

13 2665.33 2335.67 2741.18 2580.73

14 1610.93 1590.75 1863.52 1688.40

15 337.69 97.85 279.89 238.47

16 747.16 572.58 882.65 734.13

17 722.88 656.75 512.80 630.81

18 451.94 345.65 411.58 403.05

19 2026.30 1636.94 1160.18 1607.80

20 1674.02 1686.86 2612.89 1991.26

21 1084.68 986.76 987.65 1019.70

22 719.63 779.40 251.35 583.46

23 -237.00 -295.82 553.61 6.93

24 1331.57 1269.18 34.92 878.56

Total, 

Empty Train 13135.12 11662.57 12292.22 12363.30

Total, 

Round Trip 27335.85 25881.23 28733.29 27292.71

Calculated Mechanical Energy (kW-Hrs), Lubricated Runs

F-3
Segment 

No. 

Avg. Mechanical Energy (kW-Hrs), 

Unlubricated Runs 

Avg. Mechanical Energy (kW-Hrs), 

Lubricated Runs 

% 

Savings

1 935.10 341.13 63.52

2 5206.25 5005.77 3.85

3 -1491.07 -1415.16 5.09

4 -1094.66 -1007.75 7.94

5 2867.80 2923.14 -1.93

6 4658.11 4402.71 5.48

7 -63.78 -72.24 -13.26

8 -359.81 -477.55 -32.72

9 1034.60 908.78 12.16

10 1214.19 1086.72 10.50

11 936.78 638.74 31.82

12 2694.17 2595.14 3.68

Segment 

No. 

Avg. Mechanical Energy (kW-Hrs), 

Unlubricated Runs 

Avg. Mechanical Energy (kW-Hrs), 

Lubricated Runs 

% 

Savings

13 2443.36 2580.73 -5.62

14 1677.56 1688.40 -0.65

15 127.74 238.47 -86.69

16 683.94 734.13 -7.34

17 801.12 630.81 21.26

18 448.22 403.05 10.08

19 2103.49 1607.80 23.56

20 1854.87 1991.26 -7.35

21 1117.33 1019.70 8.74

22 751.32 583.46 22.34

23 -240.50 6.93 102.88

24 1234.62 878.56 28.84

Average Percentage of Savings Per Segment = 8.59

Mechanical Energy Savings, Individual Segments

F-4
Run 2 

Unlubricated

Run 3 

Lubricated

Run 4 

Unlubricated

Run 5 

Lubricated

Run 6 

Unlubricated

Unlubricated 

Runs

(kW-Hrs) (kW-Hrs) (kW-Hrs) (kW-Hrs) (kW-Hrs) (kW-Hrs) 

Loaded Train 16586.53 12980.56 13646.87 12996.95 15028.40 15116.70 

Empty Train 12482.98 12006.51 11288.62 10660.48 11236.03 11885.80 

Round Trip 29069.51 24987.07 24935.49 23657.43 26264.43 27002.50 

Average Mecha

Mechanical Energy Calculations, Overall Results

F-5