Another curiosity question...with all things being equal, if you had two trains with equal tonnage on the same route, one powered by a 4500 oil burner and one with a 4500 coal burner, which train would go further without refueling-water usage notwithstanding? I'm aware of the advantages of each in their normal usage but I've never seen a comparison as far as actual miles traveled. Thanks. Larry F.
First, a disclaimer: I don't have actual in-service performance figures available. Hopefully, others will chime in with real-world fuel usage. However, the math would suggest that the oil burners would go further. This is assuming that thermal efficiency is the same for coal or oil, which may or may not be the case. Assuming an average BTU content of 153,000 BTU's per gallon for Bunker C, we multiply that by the 6500 gallon tender capacity for a 4500 oil burner for a total BTU content of 994.5 million BTU's. Assuming an average BTU content of 13,000 BTU's per pound of Bituminous coal, we multiply that by the 24 ton tender capacity for a 4500 coal burner for a total BTU content of 624 million BTU's. The math would suggest that the oil burner could travel over half again the distance of the coal burner. It will be interesting to compare that to actual performance of the 4500 class.
Thank you James. Math doesn't lie but, like you stated, there may be other factors to consider but I'll agree with your theory. Larry F.
