Ran out of fuel..?

[oversteer]

One of Chiltern's LHCS services came to a silent, unscheduled stop at Gerrards Cross this morning, causing much confusion amongst commuters waiting for the next train ("why won't this door open!")

Anyway it seems from staff comments that the loco had run out of fuel. It certainly came in quietly but I can't believe something in daily service would be allowed to run out of fuel.... Would it??

 

[michael769]

If it has someone is going to have some uncomfortable questions to answer.

 

[RPM]

Just been restarted apparently so looks like the fuel story was a red herring.

 

[oversteer]

Certainly caused a lot of angst.

Although, it worked out well stopping at Gerrards Cross because then at least trains could use platform 1 in both directions, then stopping some extra London-bound trains. Didn't get badly delayed in the end.

 

[RPM]

Looks like it was removed by a rescue loco rather than being restarted. Sorry for duff info.

 

[Mojo]

67015 was sent as a rescue loco from Wembley and subsequently developed a traction motor fault. This was isolated by the driver and has just arrived at Gerrards Cross.

 

[swt_passenger]

67015 was sent as a rescue loco from Wembley and subsequently developed a traction motor fault. This was isolated by the driver and has just arrived at Gerrards Cross.

That'll be useful - they've been complaining about insufficient trains calling there for a couple of months...

 

[Mojo]

Train now on the move from Gerrards + as of 11.05.

 

[RPM]

One of the 66s was detached from the RHTT at Aylesbury and sent to rescue the train from the north. By the time it got to Wycombe 67015 had been fixed so the 66 was sent back. It is currently at PRR waiting for a path back over the branch.

 

[merlodlliw]

One of Chiltern's LHCS services came to a silent, unscheduled stop at Gerrards Cross this morning, causing much confusion amongst commuters waiting for the next train ("why won't this door open!")

Anyway it seems from staff comments that the loco had run out of fuel. It certainly came in quietly but I can't believe something in daily service would be allowed to run out of fuel.... Would it??

The first 67 run by W/S also ran out of fuel,lucky it had another 67 at the rear
in place of a DVT, problem with the hiring Company not filling it up, if I recall due to it being in the wrong place at the wrong time the day previous.

Bob

 

[LE Greys]

Leaky fuel tank caused by debris?

 

[seventh-heaven]

The first 67 run by W/S also ran out of fuel,lucky it had another 67 at the rear
in place of a DVT, problem with the hiring Company not filling it up, if I recall due to it being in the wrong place at the wrong time the day previous.

Bob

First WSMR train failed due to a dodgy microswitch on the power controller.

This morning on board computer was still showing 300 litres in tank when it stopped - more than enough to get to Wembley to fill up if it had been correct!

 

[merlodlliw]

First WSMR train failed due to a dodgy microswitch on the power controller.

This morning on board computer was still showing 300 litres in tank when it stopped - more than enough to get to Wembley to fill up if it had been correct!

Thanks for the reply, we were informed the W/S ran out of fuel. or so the story ran.

Bob

 

[mac]

wouldn't be the 1st to run out,i no of 3 that have

 

[oversteer]

So did it run out of fuel quite a bit before and just coasted down to Gerrards Cross where there was enough space to 'park' ?

I must admit to having done something similar in a car once, to minimise the distance I'd have to walk to a petrol station..

 

[Smudger105e]

First WSMR train failed due to a dodgy microswitch on the power controller.

This morning on board computer was still showing 300 litres in tank when it stopped - more than enough to get to Wembley to fill up if it had been correct!

Not sure about 67's but a DBS 66 has a tank capacity of 6300 litres, but a useable capacity of something around 6000 litres...

 

[TDK]

The first 67 run by W/S also ran out of fuel,lucky it had another 67 at the rear
in place of a DVT, problem with the hiring Company not filling it up, if I recall due to it being in the wrong place at the wrong time the day previous.

Bob

That is not correct bob, the first WS loco failed with a power controller fault and the rear loco was run round to provide the power
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not sure about 67's but a DBS 66 has a tank capacity of 6300 litres, but a useable capacity of something around 6000 litres...

A 67 holds 5500 litres I believe

 

[Smudger105e]

If a 67 holds 5000 litres though, It will not be able to use 5000 litres, more like 4700, hence me saying if the fuel pulse meter says 300 litres, it might not be able to use that...

 

[causton]

...so what is the 300 litres doing if you can't use it?!?

 

[Smudger105e]

Sitting in the bottom of the tank, making sure the loco does not suck up the dirt, water and other muck in the dregs of the fuel...

 

[caliwag]

Mmmm...I have seen a vid on you tube, or somewhere, of a Dubdee (sorry younguns, a steam engine) with a rake of coal empties, crawling through Wakefield (their stronghold) having plainly run out of coal...it is great to see, but importantly it was still running, OK at about 5 mph.

If I can find the link!

 

[TDK]

If a 67 holds 5000 litres though, It will not be able to use 5000 litres, more like 4700, hence me saying if the fuel pulse meter says 300 litres, it might not be able to use that...

I have seen 67's on -100 litres on the computer before they are genererally very reliable and accurate on the useable fuel remaining, it seems that something on the loco, maybe a sensor was malfunctioning these do happen to machinery all the times, cars, planes, trains anything mechanical.

 

[Kneedown]

Mmmm...I have seen a vid on you tube, or somewhere, of a Dubdee (sorry younguns, a steam engine) with a rake of coal empties, crawling through Wakefield (their stronghold) having plainly run out of coal...it is great to see, but importantly it was still running, OK at about 5 mph.

If I can find the link!

I'm not an expert on kettles, but surely coal isn't the direct source of traction power, that would be water wouldnt it?
The coal may have run out but as long as it had water and the fire stayed hot enough to create steam it would still go?

 

[barrykas]

And another one...Reports of 168111 having run out of fuel at Hatton whilst working the 07:35 from Stratford-upon-Avon.

 

[hougtimo]

Do these trains not have fuel guages?!

 

[ainsworth74]

The coal may have run out but as long as it had water and the fire stayed hot enough to create steam it would still go?

Well yes, but without more coal it's hard to keep the fire hot! I suspect the speed of 5mph was to conserve the remaining steam (the faster you go the more steam you need the hotter the fire needs to be to the more coal you need) to get as much range out of it as possible (probably until they could get to a coaling station).

It's just a shame it was coal empties really, as I'm sure no one would have noticed if that took a bit of coal from each of the wagons to keep going

 

[RPM]

Do these trains not have fuel guages?!

The 67s have an on board computer that can give a reading on fuel level. The 165s and 168s have no fuel gauges at all.

 

[hougtimo]

So I take it fuel is calculated on running hours?

 

[RPM]

So I take it fuel is calculated on running hours?

I think it is calculated on miles rather than hours.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

They have a viewing glass on the fuel tank. You cant see it from in the cab, but it is there. The fitter will probably be relying on the overnight departure sheet to see how many miles are on the clock (so to speak) and it is fleet rather than the fitter on the ground who decide whether the train gets fuelled or not.

Something desperately needs to be done about the fuelling points at Chiltern though. Having Aylesbury and Wembley attempt to do everything clearly isnt working.